In parts one and two, I described a model whereby long running processes, including physical processes, can be advertised and invoked within service architectures. A system can advertise when it is willing to offer a service, set prices for different schedules, indicate limitations in its ability to respond, and otherwise describe what it is bringing to market. A system seeking a service can efficiently compare performance characteristics and prices for acquiring / invoking these services. Client and server can negotiate when and how a service is provided. These information exchanges are at the heart of smart grid communications. In this post...
Service Oriented Scheduling - Background Q&A
I received some very good feedback and questions on the first two parts of the Service Oriented Scheduling series (SOS). In particular, there were questions the relationship between EMIX and WS-Calendar, about the difficulty of creating Calendar artifacts, and about some elements that have been missing from traditional Calendar communications. In this post, I will try to address these.
Service Oriented Scheduling (Part 2): EMIX Terms
In a previous post, I described how WS-Calendar introduces schedules to service interactions. It is now straight-forward for two systems to negotiate operating schedules, and to contract for long running processes. If there are many choices for service provider, choosing the best service may take many negotiations. In this post, I describe how using EMIX terms can allow the service requestor rapidly to narrow the choice of service provider.