[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"
Yes, that is certainly a valid viewpoint. I am seeing many also specifying that SOA encompasses what we are calling the POA layer as well. I think it's important to recognize that there are 2 camps out there - the main thing for us is to determine which camp we belong to (meaning the TC as a whole). Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:11 PM > Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > Fabric.Stop It!" > > Joseph: > > I will assert that it is not part of SOA or the SOA RM. > Orchestration is enabled by SOA, not part of SOA itself IMO. > Process Oriented Architecture (POA) is what many are > envisioning as the layer over SOA and enabled by SOA. > > Duane > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] > >>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:01 AM > >>To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop > >>It!" > >> > >> Duane - that's a good point. I'm beginning to think that > >>orchestration itself is not part of SOA, > >> > >> > > > >We could mean that - or we could mean that orchestration > itself is not > >part of our SOA reference model. Two different things. > > > >Joe > > > >Joseph Chiusano > >Booz Allen Hamilton > >Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > >>rather, the end > >>result of an SOA is an architecture of services that are > >>"orchestratable". > >> > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:56 PM > >>To: Michael Stiefel > >>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop > >>It!" > >> > >>Endpoints are part of a service description IMO. > >>Orchestration of multiple services is out of the scope of > the core RM, > >>much the same way as how multiple houses are positioned > next to each > >>other in a grid layout is un-necessary in order to define a RM for > >>house. > >> > >>A service or house do not have to exist amongst multiple houses in > >>order to be services/houses. > >> > >>Duane > >> > >>Michael Stiefel wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Could we then conceive of endpoints and orchestration in such a > >>>fashion? Or is the critical point aspect or attribute in > which case > >>>endpoint qualifies, but orchestration does not. > >>> > >>>To make a grammatical analogy, the RM defines a substantive, and > >>>therefore adjectives (aspects and attributes) are part of > >>> > >>> > >>the RM, but > >> > >> > >>>verbs (actions) are not. > >>> > >>>(side note: I know verbs have aspect, but we are not using > the term > >>>that way). > >>> > >>>Michael > >>> > >>>At 02:34 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Since Structural Integrity is an aspect of all houses, it > could be > >>>>part of a RM as an abstract concept. Even if you do not > >>>> > >>>> > >>explicitly > >> > >> > >>>>design a house to have a certain set of structural integrity > >>>>parameters, it still does. It is not a component itself, just an > >>>>aspect or attribute. > >>>> > >>>>Duane > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Michael Stiefel wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I thought of structural integrity in terms of the entire > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>house, not > >> > >> > >>>>>just a wall, but I think your point remains the same. > >>>>> > >>>>>Granted that each architecture needs to specify its structural > >>>>>integrity, but shouldn't the RM have the concept of structural > >>>>>integrity since it is an abstract concept shared by all RAs. > >>>>> > >>>>>Michael > >>>>> > >>>>>At 02:06 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>The RM does not necessarily have to get into cardinality > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>rules IMO, > >> > >> > >>>>>>unless they are very obvious. In the case of a house, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>you may not > >> > >> > >>>>>>make consistent rules stating that every house has to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>have at least > >> > >> > >>>>>>three walls since a wall can be curved or any number of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>walls from > >> > >> > >>>>>>3 up. You may be able to infer from the relationships > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>that there > >> > >> > >>>>>>is a certain cardinality if the RM for a house said that > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>each room > >> > >> > >>>>>>has one door. > >>>>>>That would declare an association between the number of > rooms to > >>>>>>the number of doors. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall, which must be > >>>>>>specialized for each architecture based on a number > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>criteria. The > >> > >> > >>>>>>RM declares what the wall is and its' purpose, the > architect has > >>>>>>the job of specifying the actual walls to be used for each > >>>>>>architecture and ensuring they map back to requirements. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You are right - analogies are not definitions, however I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>have found > >> > >> > >>>>>>them very useful in conveying the meaning. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Duane > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Michael Stiefel wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Does the RM understand that some of the concepts are > unique and > >>>>>>>some multiple (without an exact number, you could have one > >>>>>>>circular wall, 3 walls, 4 walls, etc.)? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with concepts such as > >>>>>>>structural integrity. Structural integrity would apply to all > >>>>>>>house RAs. In my way of thinking concepts such as endpoints or > >>>>>>>orchestration are analogous to this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>In the analogy I would see the reference architecture > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>as Colonial > >> > >> > >>>>>>>American Reference Architecture, or even more specifically > >>>>>>>Colonial American Cape Ann, or Colonial American Greek Revival > >>>>>>>reference architectures. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Analogies are useful, but they are not definitions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Michael > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>RA means Reference Architecture. As per the previous > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>emails on > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>this subject, it is a generalized architecture. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The relationship is that architects use a RM as a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>guiding model > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>when building a RA. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>For example, if you are architecting a house, an RM > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>may explain > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>the concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls, > foundations, > >>>>>>>>floors, roofs, ceilings etc. It is abstract however. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>There is > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>nothing specific like a wall with measurements such as 8 feet > >>>>>>>>high. Note that the RM has only one each of these > things - it > >>>>>>>>does not have 4, 16, 23 walls, just one as a concept. > >>>>>>>>The architect may uses this model to create a specific > >>>>>>>>architecture for a specific house (accounting for such > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>things as > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>property, incline, climate etc) or an architect MAY > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>elect to use > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>it to build a more generalized reference architecture. The > >>>>>>>>latter is often done by architects who design houses. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>When they > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>sell a house, they must often re-architect the RA for > specific > >>>>>>>>implementation details such as incline of land, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>climate, facing > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>the sun etc.. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>So why do we need a RM? Simple - we now have logical > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>divisions > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>amongst the components of a house and what they mean. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>That way, > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>when a company says " we are a flooring company..", that is > >>>>>>>>meaningful since we all know what that means. The > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>same applies > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>to a roofing company. Without the basic consensus on > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>the logical > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>divisions, a roofing contractor may also try to include the > >>>>>>>>ceiling and walls as part of his offerings. > >>>>>>>>That would not work and not allow the general > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>contractor to build > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>a house very easily since there may not be consensus upon the > >>>>>>>>division of labor and components to build the house. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Do you guys think an explanation of this nature may > be good to > >>>>>>>>include in the introduction section? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Duane > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>What is an RA? What is the relationship between an RM > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>and an RA? > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>What is > >>>>>>>>>the RM->RA path for SOA? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Matt also submitted last week (I believe) that we may > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>not even > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>need an RA. How should that change our notion of RM, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>if at all? > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>Joe > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Joseph Chiusano > >>>>>>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton > >>>>>>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]