Goran:
The service layer enables the process layer
over top of it, however during runtime, services do not know if they are part
of a process or being called individually (it would generally be a bad idea to
try to maintain the overall state of a process within each service, although it
could be done). For maximum repurposing of services, it would be better to
have the service as a simple slave to the processes that may use it.
Accordingly, we made a decision that BPM,
Orchestration, choreography is not a core part of the RM for SOA. We generally
seem to agree that many SOA implementations will include a layer of BPM over
top. We are only addressing the SOA model, not the model for the underlying or
overarching layers.
I have a PPT that explains this in more
detail if you are interested.
Duane
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************
From: Matt MacKenzie
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
12:51 PM
To: ;
MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Process orientation is only one of
multiple potential integration with service oriented architecture. SOA-RM
is laying the foundation for durable architecture based on the core concept of
service orientation. We recognize that process oriented architecture is a
natural fit with service orientation…but so are things like event
orientation.
-matt
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
3:36 PM
To: MATHEWS, Tim; Matt MacKenzie; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
I think that SOA RM has done good job
documenting well-known service related concepts and defining some new ones.
I do not see other details besides
service and service-related concept definitions in the current SOA RM committee
draft right now. I look forward to seeing the completion of the model you
are working on with the bottom-up approach.
Business, business processes and collaboration aspects of business are
important to address in the model what is not the case with the current content
of the SOA RM committee draft. By a business process I mean a generic business
process entity which has common components (activities, decisions, etc) and
relationships between them that can be used to model a business process in
any environment regardless of what business we support and technology we use. I
agree with Sally that a link between business processes and services should be
one of key requirements any SOA reference model should try to meet.
I am not sure what SOA with services
brings to business when the link between the business processes and services
and overall business process semantics in the SOA context are not considered to
be important aspects in a SOA-based reference model.
Goran
-----Original Message-----
From: MATHEWS, Tim
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2005
12:34 PM
To: 'Matt
MacKenzie', 'Sally St. Amand',
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better "Componentization"
Matt - I am not sure what point you
are trying to make by this? I agree with your premise of a bottom up
effort, as this was one of the operating assumptions that was made from the
beginning.
But, I am confident it is the
business environment that is independent from the reference model.
TM
From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
11:58 AM
To: Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better "Componentization"
Sally,
A reference model actually needs to be a bottom up effort. We
leave the ever so popular ?top-down? approach to folks like ebSOA J
We?re creating a vocabulary and general understanding of what I
hope we can call a discipline of computer science in the future. This
means, we need a durable reference model that is not dependent on the current
business environment.
-matt
From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
10:19 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better "Componentization"
Frank
This is in
response to your request on last week?s conference call, if anyone has comments
speak now. I also think that the recent comments on clarifying sections are a
reflection of my issues with the specification.
I agree with the
majority of points made/described in ver 10. My issues are with what is not in
this draft. Based on Fig 1 the Refe! rence Model is guided by Reference
Architectures, Concrete Architectures, Profile & Related Models. They in
turn account for requirements, motivation & goals. This is creating a
Reference Model from the bottom up. I believe a Reference Model should reflect
a top down approach.
The Reference
Model needs to reflect the environment, the strategy and the priorities of the
business/mission/collaboration. This will impact the construction of
services. A service is a business task or activity that is realized through
technology. The draft does a good job of describing how that realization
happens. But it doesn?t provide a sufficient link between processes and
services. The draft makes the point that the central focus of! SOA is the
task of business function?getting something done. A business process is
made up of tasks and activities to achieve a goal (getting something done). The concept of creating the service from the
tasks and activities in a process is important. For example, where on the
continuum of fine grained to coarse grained should a particular service be;
this will affect interaction, reusability. The relationship between processes
and services needs to be in the Reference Model.
While I saw that
there is a note saying the glossary is still in flux, since one of the
objective of the Reference Model is a vocabulary, having less in the glossary
might be a better option. Is semantic integration a guiding principle of
SOA?
With respect to
conformance there needs to be business results. That is an SOA should provide
demonstrable mission accomplishments, e.g. ROI, match a competitors
distribution channel. SOA is not a technology. Conformance should provide
operational accomplishments, these should be measurable.
Sally
!
