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

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

I would be very willing to take on documenting it, but there is a
prerequisite that is missing, which was part of my message in this
thread - and that is coming to agreement within the TC as whether our
current RM is truly SOA - which also has a prerequisite of coming to
aggrement within the TC on what we believe SOA is (is more than 1
service required to have SOA, are shared services a fundamental
component, etc.). Our current draft states that SOA is a type of EA, and
we have already determined (I believe) that that is not the case.

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:08 PM
> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, 
> etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> I will concur that the definition between RA and RM could use 
> documenting.  Is that a task you may be willing to take on?
> 
> Duane
> 
> 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?"
> >  
> > 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.
> >
> >
>