To: | "Service-Oriented Architecture CoP" <soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | soa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
From: | "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 10 May 2006 08:28:11 -0400 |
Message-id: | <74B14CBC0FEB9D4EB16969F09FA51F45F87A5E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I
believe that it should. More specifically, which type of interface (technical or
business) depends on whether a service is primarily a technical service or a
business service. Or rather, whether it is primarily technical-"facing" or
business-"facing".
In my explanation below, I will use the term "technical interface" to
mean an an electronic "contract" between two services, such as WSDL (with full
knowledge that WSDL only provides part of what is needed in many cases). I will
use the term "business interface" to imply the presence of a technical
interface, plus business-level details about how a service fits within an
organization's operations, the general benefits that can be realized from using
the service, how it fits with the organization's strategic plans and goals, what
organizational units may most benefit from it, etc.
An example of a "technical-facing" service would be a security service
that enables services to be authenticated/authorized by other
services/systems/data sources through the provisioning of security tokens
(Kerberos, SAML, etc.). Such a service may, for example, be invoked by a data
service (think Enterprise Information Integration (EII) and federated queries)
in order to enable it to be authenticated and authorized (if all goes
well) by the data source. I would assert that the interface between the
data service and the security service is more of a technical interface than a
business interface, as it reflects an electronic "contract" between the two
services (the data service and the security service), and there is no need (or
at least not as great a need as with business-facing services) to provide a
business interface.
An example of a
"business-facing" service would be a "shipment visibility" service that is part
of a supply chain that provides the ability to know the location *and condition*
(which is very important!) of cargo at any point in a supply chain. Such a
service could, for example, enable a supply chain participant to know that
certain cargo is damaged earlier than they otherwise would know (i.e. before the
ultimate customer receives the cargo), thereby providing the
participant with an opportunity to correct the situation as soon as
possible. If this links to an operational performance measure/goal for the
participant (e.g. decrease percentage of damaged goods on arrival by X percent
this quarter), then that service is also supporting key operational needs, and
potentially providing the organization with a distinct strategic
advantage.
I would assert then
that such a service (which I like to call an "operational" service, as it does
not imply bias to commercial entities) requires both a technical interface and a
business (operational) interface. The business (operational) interface would
primarily be in written (human-readable) form, and would include such
details as those I outlined above: how the service fits
within an organization's operations (the "shipment visibility" service would be
most closely aligned with its Supply Chain operations), the general benefits
that can be realized from using the service (decreased amount of damaged goods
on arrival, which ultimately leads to greater customer satisfaction), how it
fits with the organization's strategic plans and goals (greater customer
satisfaction can provide strategic advantages), what organizational units may
most benefit from it (those that interface with Supply Chain operations),
etc.
Thanks,
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 From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mabry, Roy, Mr, OSD-NII Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:02 AM To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP Cc: soa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA (U) UNCLASSIFIED
Hi,
In regard to the
definition of service, shouldn't it include the notion that the service has
to be exposed to the external environment by a technical and business interface?
Vr,
Roy From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Harding Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:31 AM To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP; 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP' Cc: soa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA As a further update, here is the definition of SOA that was presented at The Open Group conference last week (and which we have shared with the OMG). SOA is an architectural style that supports service orientation •Service orientation A way of a way of thinking in terms of services and service based development and the outcomes that services bring •Service A logical representation of a repeatable business activity that has a specified outcome (e.g., check customer credit; provide weather data, consolidate drilling reports), is self-contained and maybe composed of other Services. It is a black box to consumers of the Service •Architectural Style The combination of distinctive features in which Enterprise Architecture is done, or expressed •The SOA Architectural style’s distinctive features: – Based on the design of the services comprising an enterprise’s (or inter-enterprise) business processes. Services mirror real-world business activity – Service representation utilizes business descriptions. Service representation requires providing its context (including business process, goal, rule, policy, service interface and service component) and service orchestration to implement service – Has unique requirements on infrastructure. Implementations are recommended to use open standards, realize interoperability and location transparency. – Implementations are environment specific, they are constrained or enabled by context and must be described within their context. – Requires strong governance of service representation and implementation – Requires a “Litmus Test", which determined a “good service” At 20:31 04/05/2006, Cory Casanave wrote: As an update from the OMG meeting last week, the SOA SIG adopted the following definition of SOA; Regards, Chris +++++ ======================================================================== Dr. Christopher J. Harding Forum Director for SOA and Semantic Interoperability THE OPEN GROUP Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX, UK Mailto:c.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone (mobile): +44 774 063 1520 http://www.opengroup.org ****************************************************************** IT Architecture Practitioners Conference Hyatt Regency, Coral Gables, FL July 17-19, 2006 Member Meetings - July 17-21, 2006 http://opengroup.org/miami2006/ ======================================================================== TOGAF is a trademark of The Open Group _________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/ Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA (U), Mabry, Roy, Mr, OSD-NII |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA (U), Mabry, Roy, Mr, OSD-NII |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA (U), Mabry, Roy, Mr, OSD-NII |
Next by Thread: | RE: [soa-forum] Definitions of SOA (U), Paul S Prueitt |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |