[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency
I think it's fine to use "capability" in multiple ways, as it is a somewhat broad term - as long as the intended meaning is clear in each case. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:40 AM To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency The Introduction to the "Goals, Critical Success Factors and Requirements starts out:: "A reference architecture is like an abstract machine. It is built to realize some function and it, in turn, relies on a set of underlying capabilites that must be present for it to perform. In the case of the SOA RA, its purpose is to enable a system to be a Service Oriented Architecture. The underlying capabilities are the particular technologies that are used to realize the SOA; in particular technology choices such as Web Service technologies, implementation technologies are not part of an abstract RA. " Are we not using the word capability here in a way that is different from the use of the term in the RM? Here we seem to be using the word capability to mean underlying technologies. In the RM we used the term to indicated the underlying functionality that is exposed through the SOA. Michael
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]