Back to the discussion of Service Domains: changes and ownership through governance.
Two readers have responded with interesting considerations.
MMahesh, your response brings about an important element of SOA: that of the separation of description from implementation and to IoD's point, if the change in question is only one of functionality and not SLA change or QoS change, then the Domain Owner has less of a say in this.
It thus appears that the service consumer expects a certain function (Service description) and a certain QoS. If these are satisfied, then the consumer if typiclaly happy.
Thus the change might not even affect the consumer, in which case the question is whether non-consumer affecting changes should be reported.
In some cases, I would like to point out that this may be warranted: where there is a deviance from a reference architecture, and i.e., of compliance. Now if the change makes sense then it must be propagated through the governance process of vitality which ensures continued relevance of the compliance criteria (eg a reference architecture or reference model) .
1. provider and consumer roles have their own concerns and governance applies to each individually and then to both to maintain a healthy service eco-system.
2. Change the implementation if you want (provider) or change it if you have to (consumer) and you are not getting your QoS or functionality. This ability to have the power to choose from various providers who suit your needs (functioanl and operational (QoS)), is a key feature of SOA.
3. Service Domains define a sphere of responsiblity, both functionally, operationally and financially.