On Dec 23, 2010, at 8:31 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote: (01)
> Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:49 PM, Anders Tell wrote:
> "Reading the document one can really ask, who, except for an IT
> professionals, can read, understand and practice it? (Top) management?
> lawyers? Business process owners?"
> Indeed. More than two years ago the group's director appeared on the forum
> asking for public comments. Now it appears it was only predending to push
> the model of service as “a logical representation of a repeatable activity
> that has a specified outcome"... To briefly repeat what was suggested:
> "A service is a complex business process, involving a service provider
> (agency) with its skill, experience, ingenuity, or expertise and service
> customer delivered intangible goods: new knowledge, learning, information,
> advice, experience, plan of actions, defence, safety, care, and other life
> necessities (food, shelter, utilities)"...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2008Jul/0001.html
> Azamat Abdoullaev (02)
I wonder if it is not possible to simplify it further along the lines of: (03)
"Service: an act or performance by someone for the benefit of another" (04)
Then IT may add details in terms of information exchanges and/or Interfaces
and others can add aspects such as
remuneration for the benefits (micro economic),
duties/rights relating to the performance,
delegation for governments and operational concerns and
processes for "business process" concerns. (05)
Unfortunately such such direction makes it more difficult to use Services for
plain information exchanges where the benefit is not clearly identifiable. (06)
Although tweaking a sense of Service towards information exchanges and
interfaces is likelly to make it more difficult for cross profession
discussions. (07)
/anders w. tel (08)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anders Tell" <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: TheSOA
> Ontology Technical Standard
>
>
>> I haven't studied the document carefully, so I may be off here and there.
>>
>> It seems to me as if this document is Yet Another IT- SOA vocabulary, made
>> by and for IT professionals including IT oriented Architects.
>>
>> While such vocabularies of Interface oriented paradigms is useful for
>> engineers and IT professional it miss key concepts of other professions.
>> One can seriously question the approach fit-for-purpuse as Business-IT
>> aligner.
>>
>> Im currently involved in a major industry project where SOA is supposed to
>> be a core enabler. Unfortunately its hasn't been the great unifier, but
>> quit the opposite. As a practitioner it consumes a lot a of energy, but
>> as researcher Im preparing two case study since the project offers a great
>> deal to study. Im personally interested in large scale Governance.
>>
>> Reading the document one can really ask, who, except for an IT
>> professionals, can read, understand and practice it? (Top) management?
>> lawyers? Business process owners?
>>
>> Is the definition
>> “A service is a logical representation of a repeatable activity that
>> has a specified outcome. It is self-contained and is a „black box‟ to
>its
>> consumers.”
>> the way other professions (above professions, + legislators) think about
>> Services?
>> An a black-box? In how many cases does a Consumer know absolutely nothing
>> about the Providers activities or outcome?
>>
>> One of the problems with IT-SOA is that when the style is practiced there
>> may be a tendency to treat everything (every information exchange) as
>> Services. Then Service == InformationExchange. But isn't a Service, from a
>> common sense point of view, related to someone that is providing a benefit
>> to some? In this case not all exchanges are Services.
>>
>> And what happened to Service Remunerations? For many profession this is a
>> first class concerns, relating to the essence of a Service.
>>
>> Another problem I've seen/is seeing is that IT Service professionals
>> sometime sees themselves as Service designers while reducing Operational
>> experts to providing requirements for service design activities. Hm, who
>> is usually better at sourcing, IT- or Operational professionals? More than
>> one profession discuss Services, obviously in different senses.
>>
>> A positive note: its good to see Events in a Service ontology. Occurrences
>> are quite useful when discussing, describing Services, across professions.
>> An proper process ontology such as PSL could also be a nice addition.
>>
>> Although I seriously wonder about the soundness of reasoning in section
>> "4.3.1 Service Consumers and Service Providers ".
>>
>> If a SOA ontology is considered as a candidate for a ontological killer
>> application then IMO then business and legal concerns must be explicitly
>> added otherwise the name should include a prefix IT-SOA or System-SOA or
>> ...
>>
>> holiday wishes
>> /anders w tell (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|