[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded
Several of the threads I've been catching up on today are suggestive of
the following conceptual division:
Service Contract: Functional Description (syntax and semantics),
External Interface Definition, etc
Service Policy: Operational Description, Terms of Use, Method of Use,
Required Security, etc
Rebekah Metz
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
Voice: (703) 377-1471
Fax: (703) 902-3457
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:29 PM
> To: Rex Brooks
> Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Duane Nickull; Metz Rebekah; soa-rm@lists.oasis-
> open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA
> meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded
>
> I agree that Data Model may be an ill-advised term because it is too
> easy to connect it with aspects of the service that are hidden from
> users and thus of no immediate consequence to the SOA. I think what
we
> are talking about might be better described as the external interface
> definition.
>
> As to semantics, I believe it is crucial that we include that a
> mechanism MUST exist to indicate the semantics, otherwise it is
> impossible to really use a service you have discovered for the first
> time. Concepts in namespaces, tModels, and OWL-S may be useful here.
>
> To go further, I'd suggest the service description be liberally
defined
> to be *everything* (and, at the moment, I think I do mean everything)
a
> prospective user could need to access to determine (1) if the service
> is of use (including whether the terms of use are acceptable) and (2)
> if useful, how to use. Conversely, the user description should
include
> everything the service needs to access to determine whether the user
is
> authorized to use the service.
>
> The question would then be what constructs are necessary in an SOA to
> support these "capabilities".
>
> Ken
>
> On Mar 31, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>
> > Data Models do include the notion of Semantics inherently, but as
Joe
> > points out, it seems out of scope for this RM. However, we do need
to
> > consider Semantic concerns for how we define and classify, if we
> > classify, Services.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Rex
> >
> > At 7:39 AM -0500 3/31/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >> <Quote>
> >> An open ended question is "does the data model
> >> include the notion of semantics?". I would like to hear comments
back
> >> on this matter.
> >> </Quote>
> >>
> >> I wonder if the answer to this question has any bearing on our RM,
or
> >> if
> >> it is out of scope no matter what the answer is?
> >> Kind Regards,
> >> Joseph Chiusano
> >> Booz Allen Hamilton
> >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:33 PM
> >>> To: Metz Rebekah
> >>> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the
> >>> last ebSOA meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rebekah:
> >>>
> >>> Some comments inline:
> >>>
> >>> Metz Rebekah wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >All -
> >>> >
> >>> >I have another 25 messages to go before I catch up with all
> >>> the traffic
> >>> >on the list, so I apologize if my comments are already outdated.
> >>> >
> >>> I would recommend reading Thomas's elegant summary - it may
> >>> save you some time ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >Respecting the service description, contract, and data model
from
> >>> >Duane's message - does you think that "all aspects of the
service"
> >>> >encompasses the service interface and the policy? I like
> >>> the use of the
> >>> >term service contract, but have seen several interpretations
> >>> of the term
> >>> >ranging from semantics ("what is meant") to syntax (vis a
> >>> vis the WSDL)
> >>> >and also that the WSDL is the data model is the contract. I
> >>> would argue
> >>> >that the contract is the same as the data model. However,
> >>> I'd have to
> >>> >think a bit more to provide a convincing argument rather than
> >>> simply
> >>> >positing an idea.
> >>> > >
> >>> The data model is the abstract concept of what data you will
> >>> pass in and
> >>> out of a service. An open ended question is "does the data model
> >>> include the notion of semantics?". I would like to hear
> >>> comments back
> >>> on this matter.
> >>>
> >>> >Continuing into the message, I would disagree with the
following:
> >>> > >
> >>> >>If I build something and that is "Service Oriented"
> >>> >>architecturally, does it have to have a "message"? No - the
> >>> >>service itself has a mechanism that allows a service consumer
> >>> >>to bind to it to invoke the service but it doesn't actually
> >>> >>have to be invoked for it to be "service oriented
> >>> >>architecture". >> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >I would argue that conceptually, a message exists. <SNIP>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Try to think abstract. If you think concrete - then the
> >>> answer is yes,
> >>> however the reference model is not concrete. No other
> >>> reference models
> >>> use messages by convention either. If you find one that is well
> >>> scrutinized and accepted by peers, please let me know.
> >>>
> >>> >The mechanism by
> >>> >which the consumer binds to the service and invokes it
> >>> constitutes the
> >>> >message.
> >>> >
> >>> Conceptually - yes. The "service" element of the SOA RM draft on
> >>> the
> >>> position paper includes the concept of a binding. A physical
> >>> message
> >>> does not have to be sent. When using the RM to write a concrete
SO
> >>> infrastructure architecture, one would recognize that a
> >>> message protocol
> >>> would likely be needed to be specified, along with several
> >>> other items
> >>> like security, potentially some sort of state management
> >>> (like BPM), etc
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this helps a bit.
> >>>
> >>> Duane
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ***********
> >>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -
> >>> http://www.adobe.com
> >>> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary -
http://www.unece.org/cefact/
> >>> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
> >>> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
> >>> ***********
> >> >
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rex Brooks
> > President, CEO
> > Starbourne Communications Design
> > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> > Berkeley, CA 94702
> > Tel: 510-849-2309
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-883-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-883-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]