Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> When accepting business > processes as sharable, that is a very dangerous assumption, > so sharing services is inherently less dangerous than sharing > processes. On the other hand, in a system built up over > outsourced components, services and processes, the legal > principles are such that he who offers the process assumes > the duty and then, the opaqueness of the service makes it > difficult to manage the risk. It will be interesting to see > the outcome of negligence torts based on *respondeat > superior* where the system is SOA-conforming. That's where service insurance comes in: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200410/msg00010.html Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:38 PM > To: 'W. E. Perry'; XML DEV > Subject: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down? > > True. That would be orchestration or choreography, yet > another set of overlapping terms meant to extend concepts > that are ambiguous to begin with. > > Turtles all, but hey, this is the web. > > However, you are closer to definition three and that is the > one that stands apart because it does concern itself with > sharable business processes rather than the implementation in > the code. It is fun to watch terms start in business or > sales work their way into the code vocabularies and vice > versa. I think that is part of how product evolution works > (chaos or uncertainty as an engine). It also provides > moments of great comedy. I was in training for an internal > system the other day where one of the selections in a choice > list was "Not in The Vision". It was considered more polite > than "No" or "Declined" or the former "Ain't Gonna Happen". > I await with delightful anticipation the reactions of > customers who see that. > > The biggest flaw in the thinking of analysts is the > assumption that what they see or hear as policy has a basis > in rationality in all cases. When accepting business > processes as sharable, that is a very dangerous assumption, > so sharing services is inherently less dangerous than sharing > processes. On the other hand, in a system built up over > outsourced components, services and processes, the legal > principles are such that he who offers the process assumes > the duty and then, the opaqueness of the service makes it > difficult to manage the risk. It will be interesting to see > the outcome of negligence torts based on *respondeat > superior* where the system is SOA-conforming. > > Robin says: "I was more worried about "discrete services" > invoked from a "provider" in order to perform a "certain task"." > > That is actually the problem in a nutshell. > > len > > -----Original Message----- > From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@f...] > > ... SOA is most emphatically not about the design of the processes > themselves: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org > <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS > <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> >
|
