Re: [soa-rm-ra] Service participants

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Continuing thread with agreed upon items removed.  If you don't agree  
where Danny did, feel free reinsert.

Jeff - I'll try service description through wiki but don't want to  
transcribe this now.

Frank - I believe you own service participant.  Should I (at some later  
point) modify the wiki or do you want to do it?

Ken

On Oct 11, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Danny Thornton wrote:

> I've added my comments below.  Let us know when the
> tags get to be too annoying to deal with.
>
>
[snip]
>
>
> <original>
> In normal parlance, the service provider commonly
> refers to either the ultimate owner of the capability
> that is offered or at least an agent acting as proxy
> for the owner.
> </original>
> <suggestion>
> Consider adding the following:  For example, an
> individual may own a simulation program that
> encompasses a capability but will enter into an
> agreement with another individual (the proxy) to
> provide SOA access to that capability.
> </suggestion>
>
> <danny comment>
> I don't see the suggestion following the description
> for service provider.  "Simulation program" lost me.
> </danny comment>
>
Maybe not the best example but I thought motivating the difference  
between the "ultimate owner of the capability" and a proxy would be  
useful.  Open to suggestions.

>
> <original>
> A service consumer is a participant that actively
> engages with a service...
> </original>
> <suggestion>
> For consistency with RM:  A service consumer is a
> participant that interacts with a service...
> </suggestion>
>
> <danny comment>
> "actively engages" provides more meaning than
> "interacts".  When would the start of a
> consumer/producer interaction not be due to the active
> engagement on the part of the consumer?
> </danny comment>
>
If as a prospective consumer makes visible a need ("I looking for a  
business service to find scholarships for my daughter") as part of its  
description, then prospective providers may initiate the interaction.

>
> <original>
> However, the service consumer normally refers to the
> ultimate beneficiary of the use of a service's
> capabilities.
> </original>
> <comment>
> This gets back to the comment above about mutual
> benefit.  The suggestion changes the message but I
> believe is still accurate.
> </comment>
> <suggestion>
> However, the service consumer normally refers to the
> initiator of the use of a service's capabilities.
> </suggestion>
>
> <danny comment>
> If "actively engaged" stayed the same then "ultimate
> beneficiary" provides additional meaning.
> </danny comment>
>
"ultimate beneficiary" is shady.  You're a multimillionaire looking for  
a 1964 baseball card to complete your collection and I sell it to you  
for $5M.  Who is the ultimate beneficiary?

> <original>
> Apart from the mechanical aspects governing how
> participants interact with and offer services, it is
> important to capture the relationships between
> participants that are mediated by services. At its
> most basic, this refers to the use of services to
> achieve a real world effect: a service is used by a
> service consumer in order to achieve a change in the
> real world that meets a desired goal.
> </orginal>
> <comment>
> Mutual benefit again.
> </comment>
> <suggestion>
> a service is provided by a provider and used by a
> service consumer in order to achieve a change in the
> real world that meets a desired goal.
> </suggestion>
>
> <danny comment>
> Either description reads ok to me.
> </danny comment>
>
>
>
[snip]
>
> <original>
> This means that, when the persons acts appropriately,
> it is as though the other person or entity performs
> the action. In the case of non-human entities, the
> only way in which they can perform actions is via the
> empowerment of people.
> </original>
> <suggestion>
> Would it be helpful between the two sentences to add:
> An example of this is granting someone a power of
> attorney.
> </suggestion>
>
> <danny comment>
> Agree with example.
> <suggestion>
> Expand "empowerment of people" to something like
> "empowerment of an authorative entity."  This goes
> back to Ken's last comment.
> </suggestion>
> </danny comment>
>
further wordsmithing will be needed but we get the idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508