[okfn-discuss] Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0
john.bywater at appropriatesoftware.net
Wed Jul 23 12:26:22 BST 2008
Rufus Pollock wrote:
> On 14/07/08 16:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> Well, I guess it is too late, but I don't get "software service".
>> John Bywater wrote a few days ago 'Yet overall, I do feel the name
>> "software service" is much more common than "network service", and as
>> such a much better thing to conjoin with "open" and "definition".'
>> Not if you check authoritative sources, like Google and Wikipedia. :)
> You should have spoken up earlier -- though the danger would be we would
> have never reached agreement :)
Been away for a few days, but just to josh along with this a bit
further, I wonder whether the concern Mike raises is a good one....
I assume: what is common is what is good; we're looking for a good name. :-)
So it's true, neither Wikipedia nor Google have a definition of
"software service", which indicates fairly authoritatively the term
isn't an official name. But that says nothing of how common it is. :-)
Without thinking about it much, the count of Google search results seems
to be a measure of the circulation of a term, in other words how common
it is. I didn't look before, but it turns out the word phrase "software
service" has 32% more results on Google than "network service" (5.3m and
4m respectively)  .
At the same time, as Rufus has heard (mentioned by him below), Wikipedia
definitively indicates that a network service is basically something
your ISP provides  in other words bandwidth and network access, and
not really anything to do with the application layer at all.
For me, the best argument for OSD => OSSD would follow from the
authoritative observation of Grady Booch that the history of software is
increasing layers of abstraction. In this case, it is the service level
which abstracts pure software functionality from the software system and
its ever-attendant development/deployment/maintenance/migration process.
But that has raised new concerns about access and ownership. Such
concerns are addressed by this defintion, which is it's entire purpose.
Injecting 'S-for-service' into the F/O-S-D name stack supports such a
meaning, as Masayuki Hatta articulated well under the notion of
continuity in his last post to this list.
> Perhaps this is something we can keep
> open for the v1.1 (or v2.0) which will undoubtedly be necessary as more
> precise use-cases (and edge-cases) come in over time.
Perhaps it would be useful to clarify in the definition somewhere that
the name "Open Software Service Definition" can be read as:
"Open Software [as a] Service Definition"
"Open Software [Application] Service Definition" ?
Incidentally, was there ever an "Open Application Service Definition"
option in this discussion? The term Application goes back to the
standard reference model. But still, despite being u:ber-official, it
might not be so common anymore....
> It does seem that none of the suggested names were perfect (for example
> several people I've mentioned Open Network Services too think their
> about rules for ISPs).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the okfn-discuss