Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

If we had spent more time on Choreography, where events trigger 
policy-based rules for transactions and/or communications, it would 
be somewhat easier to pull together a stand alone Policy subsection. 
Of course, Orchestration also employs policy-based rules, but 
resorting to a Conroller Application removes the requirement for 
either human intervention based on judgment required by rules and 
assessing state, or some heuristic algorithm.

I'd still just add the standalone policy subsection rather than 
eliminating the Policies and Contracts which I think we need for more 
reasons than just continuity from the RM.

Cheers,
Rex

At 7:03 PM -0400 4/11/09, James Odell wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>
>Hmmm.  While the two "the enforcement of the two is fairly closely 
>aligned" -- contracts are not necessary for Policies, only the other 
>way around.  Policies, IMO should stand alone on their own.  The CEP 
>folks argue that policies and events are "fairly closely aligned". 
> I can name a half dozen other areas that could say the same.  The 
>bottom line is that:  Policy is a concept that may be necessary, but 
>not sufficient for other areas.  Therefore, I strongly support its 
>own sub-section.
>
>-Jim
>
>
>
>On 4/11/09 6:11 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited:
>
>Hi Jim
>  Thank you for taking a look.
>  As far as policies go, we have havered a little (to use a 
>Scottish-ism) on how to organize it. In the RM work we closely 
>identified the two -- with the distinction being that contracts are 
>agreed to and policies are asserted. Once you have either one, the 
>enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned.
>Frank
>On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, James Odell wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>  After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having 
>sat through the recent spate of meetings, I have the following say 
>about the reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>
>  Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a 
>coherent and logical manner.  Perhaps, it is because I read it too 
>many times now.  But, I don't think so.
>  Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work needed 
>on the SOA-RA at this point in its development.  We need to get it 
>released for public comment - without compromising quality and 
>understandability, of course.
>  Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to suggest 
>a reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>
>  1)  Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier than 
>they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages).  Since policies - IMO - 
>are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like to see them 
>addressed earlier.  (My personal opinion is that policies are not 
>mentioned anywhere near the amount that they should. For example, 
>they are used in events, composition of services, roles, and 
>organizations.  However, since this would involve additions to the 
>current document, I will not push this)
>
>  2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts. 
> While policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone 
>concept - which neither depends on nor is used solely with Contract. 
> (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies as a separate notion.)  Why is 
>this reasonable?  Because policies are used in a variety of 
>situations - only one of which is contracts.  By placing Policies in 
>lock step with (and almost subordinate to) with Contracts is not 
>appropriate, IMO.  
>
>  3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct 
>subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5).  
>
>  In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of Policy and 
>not require much change to the current document.
>
>
>  All the best,
>
>  Jim
>   


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670