[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business
That is not my reason. SOA-RM should not be tied to a particular realm. An RA on the other hand may be. -Matt Chiusano Joseph wrote: > <Quote> > > I'm in the same boat. I don't want our work getting painted with the > B2B brush > </Quote> > > > > Right - that would be too much like ebX...... > > > > ;) > > > > Joe > > (standard- and vendor-neutral) > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > <https://webmail.bah.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.boozallen.com/> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] > *Sent:* Wed 5/11/2005 12:00 PM > *To:* soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business > > I'm in the same boat. I don't want our work getting painted with the > B2B brush > John Harby wrote: > > >My concern comes from spending a good deal of time in the biotech > >space where "business" would turn off those who consider their > >applications "scientific". > > > >On 5/11/05, Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > >>I cannot imagine a legitimate reason to define or use the word > >>"business" in our specification. > >> > >>-matt > >>Duane Nickull wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>John: > >>> > >>>Thank you - that is more elegantly stated that the way I wrote that > >>>question. > >>> > >>>Anyone care to post an opinion? > >>> > >>>Duane > >>> > >>>John Harby wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>What value does it add to use 'business' as opposed to some more > >>>>generic term? > >>>> > >>>>On 5/11/05, Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Ken: > >>>>> > >>>>>I still think this may weight in as too specific and > constrictive. The > >>>>>gist seems to be the "the activities undertaken to accomplish goals", > >>>>>regardless of the the type of entity owning or operating the IT. > >>>>> > >>>>>For sake of clarity, can we not use the term "business"? Or does > >>>>>anyone > >>>>>believe we absolutely need to use that word. > >>>>> > >>>>>Duane > >>>>> > >>>>>Ken Laskey wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>But do we also need to cover > >>>>>> > >>>>>>business: the goals expressed by an organization and the activities > >>>>>>undertaken to accomplish those goals > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Ken > >>>>>> > >>>>>>At 08:31 AM 5/11/2005, Peter F Brown wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Duane: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I take Martin's point but there is a difference between the > >>>>>>>"business" as an > >>>>>>>organisational entity; and "business" as the work/mission that the > >>>>>>>entity > >>>>>>>undertakes. I would prefer "enterprise" or "organisation", but > could > >>>>>>>livewith "business" provided there is a clear definition in the > >>>>>>>glossary as > >>>>>>>you suggest. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>If "business" it is to be, then I'd propose for the glossary: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Business: any organisation, enterprise or undertaking, whether > >>>>>>>for-profit, > >>>>>>>voluntary or governmental in nature, with a particular mission and > >>>>>>>structure" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Peter > >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >>>>>>>Sent: 11 May 2005 04:24 > >>>>>>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for > Introduction > >>>>>>>text) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Martin: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Yes - I know in our current context it is implicitly understood > >>>>>>>however I do > >>>>>>>want to keep our focus a bit strict about this to ensure that when > >>>>>>>someone > >>>>>>>picks up this RM 5 years from now it is still pretty clear. If > there > >>>>>>>is a > >>>>>>>term that is not necessary to use that may cast ambiguity, we > should > >>>>>>>probably error on the side of safety. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>If this becomes as popular as the OSI stack, we have to strive to > >>>>>>>make sure > >>>>>>>that 10 years from now people don't discard it because it only > >>>>>>>applies to > >>>>>>>business. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Perhaps we should define it in the glossary if we did keep it in. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Duane > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Smith, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Duane - - I wouldn't lose sleep over the term "business." We (in > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Government) use it all the time as synonymous with "mission". We > >>>>>>>talk about > >>>>>>>"business case", "business value", "business impact", "business > >>>>>>>owner" and > >>>>>>>"business process." It often is used to contrast with > "non-business" > >>>>>>>functions or considerations like "support" or "infrastructure" or > >>>>>>>"administrative" or "compliance". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Martin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>________________________________ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >>>>>>>>Sent: Tue 5/10/2005 12:05 PM > >>>>>>>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for > Introduction > >>>>>>>>text) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I would object to any statement or notion that made SOA only SOA > >>>>>>>>in the > >>>>>>>>context of 'business', however I think I understand the intent of > >>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>statement and agree. Business is one type of user. Department of > >>>>>>>>Homeland Security is not a business yet they ill have SOA (at > least > >>>>>>>>Martin hasn't tried to sell me anything yet ;-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Perhaps we could re-state it as an IT need, written in a way that > >>>>>>>>speaks to business and government users. This is harder than it > >>>>>>>>appears and I failed at it miserably but would love to hear your > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>guys take. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Something like (but not) this: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>"SOA is an architectural model developed to enable those who > >>>>>>>>build and > >>>>>>>>maintain IT systems to repurpose components rapidly for new > >>>>>>>>functionality. This enables them to respond quickly and in an > >>>>>>>>economically efficient manner to new requirements" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Does that make sense? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Duane > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Sally, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I like your comment regarding SOA being a response for business, > >>>>>>>>>and I > >>>>>>>>>believe it is completely true. A general question for us: Since > >>>>>>>>>we are > >>>>>>>>>approaching SOA from the technical perspective (at least that > is my > >>>>>>>>>understanding), wouldn't it be out of our scope to refer to the > >>>>>>>>>business aspects of SOA (i.e. that SOA encapsulates business > >>>>>>>>>services > >>>>>>>>>in....etc. etc.)? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Joe > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Joseph Chiusano > >>>>>>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton > >>>>>>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >>>>>>>>><http://www.boozallen.com/> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:17 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: Smith, Martin; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for > >>>>>>>>> Introduction text) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>>> I like your thoughts and agree that SOA is a response to the > >>>>>>>>> characteristics of the internet that you list. I also think > >>>>>>>>>SOA is > >>>>>>>>> a response for business. > >>>>>>>>> We need to answer your question, otherwise SOA will be ( or is > >>>>>>>>> already ) viewed as a marketing ploy > >>>>>>>>> See additional thoughts below. > >>>>>>>>> Sally > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Smith, Martin" <Martin.Smith@DHS.GOV> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> List - - > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I sent essentially this same message in the thread > "[soa-rm] > >>>>>>>>> When Is An SOA Really An SOA?" a while back, but got no > >>>>>>>>> response. Thought I'd try again to see if no-one noticed > >>>>>>>>>it or > >>>>>>>>> no-one liked it . . . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm proposing we include something like the following > in the > >>>>>>>>> Introduction. As several people have observed, we all > tended > >>>>>>>>> to jump right in to the details of "what is an SOA" without > >>>>>>>>> nailing down the answer to the "why should I [the reader] > >>>>>>>>> care?" question. As we learned in the f2f discussion, > many of > >>>>>>>>> us on the TC care because it's our job to explain to others > >>>>>>>>> why we all seem to think we need this 'SOA' thing > (other than > >>>>>>>>> that it keeps being in the news!) I'm guessing that if > we can > >>>>>>>>> understand why SOA has become a buzzword, we'll clarify the > >>>>>>>>> "essential definition" question. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, here's what I think is driving SOA: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "The SOA concept has emerged in response to the need for an > >>>>>>>>> approach to application architecture that is well > adapted to > >>>>>>>>> the I! nternet environment. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> SOA is a strategy that organizes an enterprises > functionality > >>>>>>>>> as services that can be aggregated and/or reused in > order to > >>>>>>>>> achieve business goal(s). To take advantage of services > over > >>>>>>>>> the internet there has to be the ability to understand, > >>>>>>>>> discover, combine and use the services that reside > within the > >>>>>>>>> enterprise or anywhere on the internet. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Internet has revolutionized personal communications > with > >>>>>>>>> e-mail, and "B-to-C" transactions with the World-Wide Web. > >>>>>>>>> Following the exploitation path of other technologies, the > >>>>>>>>> Internet may be expected to have a similar revolutionary > >>>>>>>>> effect on "B-to-B" transactions - - automating > >>>>>>>>> system-to-system exchanges - - and this domain may > eventually > >>>>>>>>> be several times larger in scale that the "B-to-C" space. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The characteristics of the Internet environment to > which the > >>>>>>>>> SOA concept responds are: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Multiple management domains.--Business or other entities > >>>>>>>>> "on the 'Net" each have their own set of policies and > >>>>>>>>> procedures, and they are legal peers so there is little > or no > >>>>>>>>> "top down governance" in the environment; > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Heterogeneous technologies, semantics and processes; > >>>>>>>>> 3. A very large and dynamic "marketplace" of potential > >>>>>>>>>service > >>>>>>>>> providers and consumers.--Unlike the environment within a > >>>>>>>>> single organization, there may be many alternative > providers > >>>>>>>>> of a computing service, and available services may change > >>>>>>>>>on a > >>>>>>>>> minute-by-minute basis; > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Lack of standard context.--Within a single organization, > >>>>>>>>> there is normally a body of "well-known" information about > >>>>>>>>> what resources are available, how they may be obtained, > what > >>>>>>>>> standards or conventions they follow, specific interface > >>>>>>>>> details, reliability of the resource, payment > >>>>>>>>>requirements, if > >>>>>>>>> any, etc. In the environment of a single computer, the > >>>>>>>>> unknowns are even fewer. Because of the size and > diversity of > >>>>>>>>> the Internet, obtaining this information is a much larger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>problem. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Lack of infrastructure services.--The Internet provides > >>>>>>>>> some basic services, but on a "best-efforts" basis. Thus > >>>>>>>>> issues like quality-of service and security require must be > >>>>>>>>> addressed more explicitly than in single-computer or > >>>>>>>>> local-network environments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Application architectures that call themselves "SOA" > >>>>>>>>>provide a > >>>>>>>>> solution to these issues of the Internet environment. > >>>>>>>>>There is > >>>>>>>>> nothing to prevent implemen! ting an SOA within a local > >>>>>>>>> network, on a single computing platform, or even in a > >>>>>>>>> non-technical environment like a human household, but the > >>>>>>>>>need > >>>>>>>>> for SOA is driven by the opportunity for exploiting the > >>>>>>>>> worldwide connectivity provided by the Internet." > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:05 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] When Is An SOA Really An SOA? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This seem to be an issue for defining "Reference > Model". Does > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>> reference model provide a litmus test for architectures to > >>>>>>>>> determine > >>>>>>>>> whether or not they follow SOA? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 5/5/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > This question has been on my mind for quite some time, > >>>>>>>>>and I > >>>>>>>>> would like now > >>>>>>>>> > to put it in the context of our in-process RM. > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > In the past, I have pondered the following more specific > >>>>>>>>> question (please ! > >>>>>>>>> > note that this is all scoped to Web Services-based > SOA for > >>>>>>>>> ease of > >>>>>>>>> > explanation): > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > If I have 2 Web Services that communicate, do I have an > >>>>>>>>>SOA? > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > We can say "certainly not!". One can do point-to-point > >>>>>>>>> integration with Web > >>>>>>>>> > Services just as easily (to a certain degree) as without, > >>>>>>>>> with redundant Web > >>>>>>>>> > Services rather than shared Web Services (a violation of > >>>>>>>>>one > >>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>> > foundational tenets of SOA, which is shared services). > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Now let's say that we have 2 Web Services that each > conform > >>>>>>>>> to the SOA > >>>>>>>>> > Architectural Model in Figure 1 of our most recent draft. > >>>>>>>>> There is a data > >>>>>>>>> > model, a policy, a contract, etc. > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Add to that our definition of SOA on line 470, in > which we > >>>>>>>>> (correctly) state > >>>>>>>>> > that SOA is a form of Enterprise Architecture, which (at > >>>>>>>>> least in my mind) > >>>>>>>>> > implies enterprise-level benefits. > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Q: Given the last scenario above (2 Web Se! rvices that > >>>>>>>>>each > >>>>>>>>> conform to the > >>>>>>>>> > SOA Architectural Model ) and our definition of SOA: Is > >>>>>>>>>this > >>>>>>>>> scenario > >>>>>>>>> > large-scale enough that it *really* meets our definition? > >>>>>>>>> IOW, how > >>>>>>>>> > large-scale does an "instance" that conforms to our > RM have > >>>>>>>>> to be to yield > >>>>>>>>> > benefits on an enterprise scale? Do we need to stipulate > >>>>>>>>> something regarding > >>>>>>>>> > this for our RM? > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Joe > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Joseph Chiusano > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Booz Allen Hamilton > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>>>*********** > >>>>>>>>Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - > >>>>>>>>http://www.adobe.com Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture > >>>>>>>>Reference Model Technical Committee - > >>>>>>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm > >>>>>>>>Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - > http://www.unece.org/cefact/ > >>>>>>>>Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - > >>>>>>>>http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html > >>>>>>>>*********** > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>>*********** > >>>>>>>Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - > >>>>>>>http://www.adobe.com > >>>>>>>Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model > Technical > >>>>>>>Committee - > >>>>>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm > >>>>>>>Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - > http://www.unece.org/cefact/ > >>>>>>>Adobe > >>>>>>>Enterprise Developer Resources - > >>>>>>>http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html > >>>>>>>*********** > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>-- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> / Ken > >>>>>>Laskey > >>>>>>\ > >>>>>>| MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 | > >>>>>>| 7515 Colshire Drive fax: > 703-983-1379 | > >>>>>> \ McLean VA > >>>>>>22102-7508 / > >>>>>> > >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>*** note: phone number changed 4/15/2005 to 703-983-7934 *** > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>-- > >>>>>*********** > >>>>>Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - > >>>>>http://www.adobe.com > >>>>>Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model > >>>>>Technical Committee - > >>>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm > >>>>>Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ > >>>>>Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - > >>>>>http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html > >>>>>*********** > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]