ancillary changes comment

["Estefan, Jeff A (3100)" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Feedback on the Ancillary Changes Document (focus on cover pages, general issues, and Sects 1, 2, & 3 only).  I have not completed reviewing the Main Changes Document.

General:

(1) Discussion about list of editors.  Current callout absolutely unacceptable. Reshuffle names based on authorship content versus alphabetical surname if necessary.  And what about Rex and David, both key contributors past 4+ years.  In other words, what should be reserved for page 1 versus Acknowledgements section. 
(2) Footer "soa-ra-cd-XX" needs to change to "soa-raf-cd-XX"
(3) First use of definition called out in bold blue text started with Frank's Section 3 updates.  What does this mean for the rest of the document?
(4) Adding index OK.  Adding glossary is sacrilege.
(5) Need to update Acknowledgements section (e.g., Peter and Chris not listed).

Section 1:

Line 156 (following). Recommend adding the figure from the white paper like our counterparts at TOG.  Just because it reflects "OASIS SOA-RA" versus "-RAF," we can state the update/correction in the title caption.   The figure helps paint a very important visual in terms of what is more abstract and foundational.

Lines 257-259:  Drop words related to "recommendation of a UML Profile for SOA" as this language predated the development and release of OMG SoaML.  We do not need to mention this and the text is out of date.  Simply need to state that every attempt is made to use normative UML 2.

Lines 299-381:  For some reason, these Architectural Implications got moved to Sect 1 and they should be at the end of Sect 3.  Incidentally, we DO want to keep these Arch Implications.  They should not be dropped.

Line 382:  I do not like the suggested names for the viewpoints, i.e., Ecosystem, System, and Process.  None of these naturally fits the 1471/42010 conceptual model.  Ecosystem, as Peter mentioned before, has a relationship of Stakeholders, Concerns, and System.  System, of course, is System.  Process is a potential viewpoint name but I don't think it fits.  Again, I recommend the following (only one change from the original set):  Participating in Service Oriented Architectures, Realizing Services Oriented Architectures, and Owning Services Oriented Architectures.  What DOES need update in this table are the Stakeholders addressed.  Right now it is either too general ("All stakeholders in the ecosystem") or too vague ("Standards Architects, Enterprise Architects, etc.).  This is a topic that needs further attention from the subcommittee and I'd like to hear some thoughts.

Section 2:

Line 645:  Dropping "Separation" seems suspect to me.  Right now, we are left with "of Concerns".  Further, the text in the Statement section would need update.  I believe what is capture in the Main Changes Doc changing "Separation" to "Distinction" so that the principle becomes Distinction of Concerns is more correct; however, the concept as Boris pointed out is more foreign to architects than Separation of Concerns.


Section 3:

Line 683:  Do not like "Ecosystem" in a view/viewpoint name.  Recommend Participating in Service Oriented Architectures View.  (Similar reference throughout.)

Lines 713-714:  Recommend dropping this figure.

Line 737:  Update figure to reflect new name of model(s).

Lines 755-756:  Many what seems to be missing words in the sentences of these paragraphs.  For example, what comes after "together for a ." ?  Also, don't like starting a sentence with I.e., T.

OK.  I'm stopping there for Section 3.  It's a mess from a Word point of view.  Something is hosed up.  I'll turn my attention to the Main Changes Doc and see if the Word issues have been resolved.  Will comment on that revision.

Regards...

 - Jeff