I disagree. SOA does not need BPM nor
will all SOA’s be used for BPM. BPM is one of *many* possible “things” that
may use SOA as a base layer. Listing only BPM infers some form of priority or
preference. The SOA cannot see nor should it care that BPM is there. TCP/IP
is not aware of services or BPM either but will likely be used in most
implementations. It does not state anywhere in the TCP/IP specs that TCP/IP
implementations will reflect business requirements or processes. Again –
that is only one possible use of many.
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: Metz Rebekah
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
1:16 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
How about words
such as “The specifics of a business process do not change
the basic SOA concepts as described in the RM. However, the specific
architecture that one designs and implements will reflect <some> business
process. Within this context, the architecture should build upon specific
service instances which correspond to the real world effects that the business
process hopes to realize.”
I thought that the W3C recognized that IT service (in particular web
service) interactions always occur via a virtual agent on both sides of the
interaction? Here we’re starting to get into the notion that there
are several ‘levels’ of critical entities within a service
interaction that all remain congruent to one another within the course of a
service interaction.
Rebekah
From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
3:06 PM
To: Ken Laskey; Goran Zugic; Matt
MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Comments inline:
*******************************
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: Ken
Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
10:39 AM
To: Duane Nickull; Goran Zugic;
Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
I think we need to add some words to the RM to capture
this discussion. We cover part of this in the beginning of Section 3.2.1
but need to be more specific that:
- a service consumer can be a human or a software agent;
DN: given that we have
scoped the RM for SOA to software architecture and it is abstract, is this
correct and relevant? How can a human interface with a SOAP node?
Since a human actor that invokes a service by using a SOAP client is invisible
to the service tier, it is probably not correct or relevant as worded. I
think I know what you are trying to say though.
- a service consumer can invoke any number of services (including a single
service in isolation) and can chain the output of some services to act as the
input of others;
DN: save this thought for
RA.
- from the perspective of a given service, the occurrence of such chaining
would not be visible;
DN: agree
- the service consumer can be implementing a business process;
DN: or an unbounded array
of other options.
- the specific of a business process do not change the basic SOA concepts as
described in the RM; however, the specific architecture that one designs and
implements will reflect the business process and make use of specific service
instances that corresponds to the real world effects that the business process hopes
to realize.
DN: concur.
Now that said, and in full appreciation that we agreed earlier that mechanisms
which combine services (e.g. choreography, orchestration) are out of scope, is it
sufficient for words, such as those suggested above, to be included somewhere
within the current discussion or do we need to pull it out into a subsection on
its own? As an example of the former, we tried to deal with
loose-coupling and coarse-grained with words at the end of Section 2.1.
DN: We used to have such words.
Are they out of the doc now?
D
