RE: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency

[Michael Stiefel <development@reliablesoftware.com>]

I think it is very confusing to use the word capability in the same 
document, several times in the sense of the RM, and then in a different 
sense. Especially when you can use a different word other than capability 
to express the same idea.

Michael

At 10:50 AM 4/3/2006, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>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