My dear Michael, that depends on what you imply by Service Contract document. Taking Miko's pizza example, an user orders a pizza. She probably doesn't care what kind of vehicle the delivery person uses or which route he takes. She, however, probably do care when it is to be delivered and whether it is still hot or not.
It seems like you people are all having a good time on the other side of the ocean. I have to swim over like Miko did and meet you in person sometimes. :) H.Ozawa --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am I right, dear > H.Ozawa, that you do not mean Service Contract document? > - Michael > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:30:40 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Goodson & Jason on Building a Data Services Layer > > > This bring up a good point. There are two kinds of contracts - a > technical contract and business contract. As you stated, protocol is > part of a technical contract, but is often not part of a business > contract for a service. > > H.Ozawa > > --- In service-orientated- > architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Karandikar, Amit" <amit.karandikar@ ...> > wrote: > > > > The protocol should be part of the technical contract of a service, > kind > > of like what the WSDL is today for web services. The formal contract > for > > the service wouldn't state the protocol (IMO). > > > > - Amit > > >
