Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region domain, trust domain, service, etc.

+1 David.

Domains give us nothing normative at all, because of our services deployment
flexibility.  Although they gave OGP a good start, they are becoming less
useful as we identify more services in VWRAP for external deployment.

David's advice regarding service clustering is particularly well given.
When a concept is not a necessity but merely a habitual deployment, it is
not useful to make it a required concept in a spec.  And worse, requiring
that services fit into a "domain" model can reduce the flexibility of how
services are deployed, and creates real problems of definition when these
domains overlap for interop.

We are being poorly served by the "domain" legacy from OGP, and I suggest
that we move beyond that phase into the realm of pure services without
conceptual circles drawn around them.

Morgaine.

======================================

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:44 PM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com>
wrote:<OhMeadhbh@gmail.com>

>
> First, +1 (if not more) on getting the terminology coherent. The time has
> come to speak of things... We need names for the things, and we need those
> names in the base drafts, with nice crisp definitions.
>
> Names only help when they add real value. If we can't crisply say "This is
> a Blongezorf, and this isn't." we're merely muddying the waters. For domain,
> this is especially tricky as there are several very good and normal uses of
> Domain, both in Distributed Computing, and to and extent the casual
> discussion centering around the specs today.
>
> From my perspective, there's a nice progression of things which we can
> define.
>
> We have a set of "messages" which are defined in LLIDL, which laminate
> together into interaction patterns
> (Post message X, Get response set Y1-Y7, post message Q) Mark that as a
> "service" , marked off by one or more capabilities.  Those services combine
> into a a cluster of services which form a capital "s" Service, such as a
> "Asset Server" or an "Inventory Service"
>
> I tend to think about the core "capital S" services as what we're busy
> defining. I'm not at all sure that, given the diversity of deployment
> patterns, defining "Domains" which tie to these into clusters beyond what
> people deploy actually adds any depth to the explanatory framework. I can
> see that there may well be some clusters of "Big S" services which often
> cluster, which may be worth looking at, if there is useful power in naming
> those clusters. Unless those clusters form of necessity, not habitual
> deployment, I'm thinking they would be a non-normative term used elucidate
> rather than define.
>
> - David
> ~ Zha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list (VWRAP working group)
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>