Sorry Matt - I thought we had
reached this decision. No problem...looking forward to exploring them on our
next call.
(Hoping we can release a spec sometime
before the year 2010 haha:)
Joe
From: Matthew MacKenzie
[mailto:]
Sent: Mon 6/6/2005 10:59 PM
To:
Chiusano Joseph
Cc:
Subject: Re:
[soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
I do not recall these decisions being made, I only recall that we agreed to
explore them on our next conference call.
-Matt
On 6-Jun-05, at 8:12 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
To clarify: We already
achieved consensus on the service consumer aspect of this on our last
conference call.
That is, we decided
that:
(1) Although a service
orientation RM (which we decided Figure 2-1 represents) does not require a
service consumer, a service-oriented architecture RM does.
(2) We would develop a SOA RM that
extends the current service orientation RM as part of our work, and that SOA
RM would include (at a minimum) a service consumer in addition to the service
orientation RM.
(3) This inclusion of a service consumer
would not be a reference architecture, but rather a reference model - namely,
a SOA reference model.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent:
Mon 6/6/2005 7:39 PM
To:
Cc:
'SOA-RM'
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or
not?
Hi - I'm back!!
Comments inline:
Peter F Brown
wrote:
>1) A service is an event
>
DN - a "service
invocation" is an event. The "service" itself is not an
event IMO, it is an
invoke able entity..
>representing a collaboration between two
parties
>for the use of defined resources: a "service RM" would be
concerned with
>representing both parties (provider and consumer), the
duality of their
>interaction through the event and the use of
resources...
>In this approach:
>- service consumer would
definitely be in, as one side of the event-based
>duality
(provider<>consumer);
>- a further level of abstraction can be
modelled, that of "agent", to
>highlight the shared properties of both
provider and consumer. In this
>manner, it would be easier to answer the
problem "how do we model the
>situation where a service provider can
also be a consumer, and vice-versa?".
>They are both agents. Whether
they are consumers or providers would
>therefore be modelled as a "role"
in agent.
>
>2) A service is a "directed collaboration" between
two parties: directed in
>the sense that one party provides a service to
another: a "service provision
>RM" would only be concerned with one side
of the duality, representing the
>service provider, irrespective of
whether the service is used, or whether
>there is a consumer at the end
of the "pipe"...
>
>
I would like to call for a vote on
this too to put it to bed for once an
all. My assertion = If I
architect something with a service, a consumer
does not have to be present
for it to be "service oriented". Nor do
messages, networks,
signals, pings, security, encryption etc etc. This
is much the
same as stating that a "message" does not have to be sent in
order for it
to be a "message". It can exist with or without
being
transmitted.
If we do go the way of the service provider and
service consumer, this
could be done in an illustrative (non-normative)
manner in the RM or
(and I favor this idea) as part of a reference
architecture. If we do
vote to include the SC, we then have to open
up the RM to everything
else that follows which means that it won't be a
RM, it will be
architecture.
I had hoped we could gain consensus on
this and avoid a vote however I
feel a vote may be inevitable.
BTW -
has anyone else noticed that the list is very slow today? It took
5 hours
for my last message to come back to me via this
list?
Duane
