[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 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@intergraph.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:38 PM
> To: 'W. E. Perry'; XML DEV
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] 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@fiduciary.com]
>
> ... 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>
>
|
