Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Comments inline:

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> Duane,
>  
> I would like to make a suggestion to help clear up the current 
> division in our TC on some basic issues, which I believe is truly 
> inhibiting our ability to move forward in a unified way - and will 
> continue to do so unless we address it at this time.
>  
> The most prominent division that I have perceived over the course of 
> several weeks is: "If we are defining a reference model, what is it 
> for? Is it for a single service? (call this "service-orientation") or 
> SOA?" IOW, "Is it SO-RM, or SOA-RM?"

I think that there is no disagreement of what a RM is or what we are 
calling the TC.  That has been specified in the charter from day 1 in 
very clear language.  We did have a brief conversation about the name 
but it was my observation that only 1 or 2 were even willing to change 
it.  The rest of the 91 members seem to be in agreement.  Likewise - who 
is still confused as to the purpose of a reference model?

>  
> The second most prominent division that I have perceived over the 
> course of several weeks is: "Where is the line drawn between RM and 
> RA?". Last week I began a thread[1] on this question, and I thank all 
> who contributed (Matt, Duane, Ken, Rex, Francis, any others I missed). 
> However, I think we really need to drill down into this question more 
> and have a crystal clear answer before we go any farther, else run the 
> risk of creating an RM that cannot easily "bridge to" an RA.

This is something that is less clear but I feel we are on track with our 
current activities.  Matt's email clarified it very well IMO.  We now 
have a collective responsibility to ensure our RM is usable, unique 
etc.  We must be vigilant in that regard.

>  
> So, I would like to propose a solution:
>  
> I would like to propose that we take an informal poll (not a formal 
> vote) across the TC as a "pulse check" that will enable us to come 
> closer together on these vital issues. The poll would be comprised of 
> the following questions (folks would simply put an "*" to the left of 
> the letter of their response):
>  
> <Questions>
> (1) Do you believe that the RM in our current draft is:
>  
> A. A service-orientation reference model
> B. A SOA reference model
> C. Other

Joseph - I am sorry but this is in our charter. it is not up for 
negotiation.  Everyone who joined this TC had the opportunity to read 
the charter.  We allowed discussion on it once or twice and my 
recollection is that there is clear consensus on both the name and 
purpose of the TC.

Reference Models are clearly scoped and defined.  This TC should not 
impose to re-define what a reference model is.  First - it will probably 
not fly with established software architects.  Second - we already 
decided to adopt and use the industry standard definition (again - in 
the charter).

We have much more important work to contemplate.  I would like to 
harness the collective experience and energy of this TC to get the core 
model nailed down.

As we progress, we will have the opportunity to examine and tune the RM 
to be useful.

Duane

>
>