[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!"
Duane, If something is a part of many/most but not all examples of an entity, would it be included in the RM? For example, barring molecular transportation, any room needs at least one opening but it does not need a door. However, most rooms in a house in Canada or the US would have doors. To be useful for such a house, the door concept would seem to be needed. Is there a parallel for SOA? Ken On May 24, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > An electrical system's details are specific to each instance of house > architecture. In Canada, we measure this in metres, not feet. In > Darfur, there are probably not even codes for electrical outlets nor > may all houses even have electricity. Since the code itself is not > part of all house architectures (some houses do not even have > electrical outlets), it is not part of the reference model IMO. On > the other hand, we could assert that every house must have an > electrical system and that those that do not, do not qualify as houses > conformant with the RM. > > Duane > > Metz Rebekah wrote: > >> As I read the analogy below, I get the sense that the structural >> integrity example is also poking at the idea that a sum is sometimes >> greater than the parts - and ultimately some considerations only arise >> when considering in total how all the architected parts derive from >> the >> RM. I may be out in left field on this one, but I haven't gotten past >> the idea that structural integrity of a *wall* can be couched as an >> aspect of a wall. However, structural integrity of the house includes >> that of the walls, that of the roof, that of the foundation, and that >> of >> the joints between all of the individual parts. How is that >> structural >> integrity addressed? (of course, we aren't really talking about >> structural integrity in the SOA-RM, but of the analogy of ideas) >> >> Taking this analogy in a slightly different direction: what about >> code >> compliance? For example, there may be a regulatory requirement that >> electrical outlets be placed every 12 linear feet within a room. >> Additionally, special grounding and positioning must be adopted for >> electrical outlets within a wet zone. Does this fall within the >> responsibility of architecture or the RM? >> >> Rebekah Metz >> Associate >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> Voice: (703) 377-1471 >> Fax: (703) 902-3457 >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:07 PM >>> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop >>> >> It!" >> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]