Skip to main content

Organizing principles for services

One of the questions that comes up from time to time is how to define your services. This has come up for me in two independent fora: within the OASIS Service Oriented Architecture work and in the context of human provided services, for example at Genietown.

In the work on the SOA Reference Model we decided that "services are the mechanism by which needs and capabilities are brought together"; i.e., its about needs and capabilities to satisfy those needs, and the access mechanism.

However, this still begs the question somewhat. In the domain of human services, where the services are things like "building a home", "walking the dog", "taking care of my elderly parents"; it gets even fuzzier. Sometimes a service seems to organized around the person offering the service, for example, an architect, or a doctor. Sometimes the service is organized around a particular kind of product, such as doors or skylights. At other times, the service is organized around a material, such as glazing and paint services. Another kind of organizing principle is location; for example, landscape services involve a whole range of things in the garden.

While it is clear that a service is typically organized around a set of actions, and one or more resources; I do not believe that there is a single 'syntactic' condition that can be applied to define a service.

Currently, we do not have a good higher-level handle on how to organize a large suite of resources and actions into well differentiated services. The standard technologist's answer to all this is to throw the problem 'upstairs' and appeal to business function (e.g., accounts, sales, library book management etc.). What that amounts to is asking someone else to come up with the organizing principles for defining a service. It may just be that the business level is the right level to ask these questions.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea:
Comments should be meaningless
What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least).

Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning
because the programming language cannot
So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer.

I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous.

So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment.

Hence the title of this blog.

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types.

Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic.

Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have …

Concept Oriented Markup

I have long been frustrated with all the different text mark up languages and word processors that I have used. There are many reasons for this; but the biggest issue is that markups (including very powerful ones like TeX) are not targeted at the kind of stuff I write.

Nowadays, it seems archaic to still be thinking in terms of sections and chapters. The world is linked and that applies to the kind of technical writing that I do.

I believe that the issue is fundamental. A concept like "section" is inherently about the structure of a document. But, what I want to focus on are concepts like "example", "definition", and "function type".

A second problem is that, in a complex environment, the range of documentation that is available to an individual reader is actually composed of multiple sources. Javadoc exemplifies this: an individual library may be documented using Javadoc into a single HTML tree. However, most programmers require access to multiple…