RE: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded)

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:12 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: 
> [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 
> (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded)
> 
> So, the message that I got was that the ballot itself was 
> dead, not the debate behind it.

Depends on what debate you mean. I believe the debate regarding whether
or not Figure 2-1 depicts service orientation or service-oriented
architecture is dead, because we had consensus that it does - and will
continue to, and should - depict service orientation. This will become
our foundation for subsequently creating a service-oriented architecture
reference model.
 
> I also certainly do not believe that the debate between 
> 'service orientation' and 'service oriented' is over.

Actually, our debate has been between "service orientation" and "service
oriented architecture" (the "a" makes a big difference there). I'm sure
there will be more debates regarding how we take the service orientation
RM and build upon it to form a SOA RM. These will be good debates, I'm
sure.
 
> I do think that there is some confusion/question about what a 
> reference model is. 

Yep - has been from the start, may not ever change:)

> My take is that it is something akin to OMG's
> MDA: a set of concepts that come together to enable one to 
> capture the key essence of an architecture.

Well I wouldn't consider MDA a reference model, but I like your
definition with one tweak: ...to enable one to *derive* an architecture
(and one may add "to capture its key essence", but that is an important
secondary point IMO).
> 
> The trouble with polarizing debates is that people get 
> emotional, 

I've often been told that emotional is good.

> and evolution is confused with 'backing down'. 
> That is why I do think it is helpful to paint everyone into 
> two camps. 

I think you meant to say that it is *not* helpful.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 
> I for one, do not fit into any camp all that 
> comfortably (never have).
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:52 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:47 AM
> >> To: Chiusano Joseph
> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE:
> >> [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005
> >> (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded)
> >>
> >> Joe:
> >>   I think that you misread the result of the call yesterday.
> >>
> >
> > Please support - what was your read? Why was mine different?
> >
> >
> >>   I also think that it is less than productive to focus on
> >> the idea of there being two 'camps'.
> >>
> >
> > Understood - no one can be wrong about this. I will respectfully  
> > choose
> > to differ on that - and if there indeed are two "camps" within a  
> > group,
> > I believe it is highly productive to recognize their 
> existence and to
> > try and work toward a solution that best satisfies both of those  
> > camps.
> > Which is what I believe we have done given yesterday's call.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >
> >
> >>   I have had a fair amount of experience in participating in
> >> standards activities. One thing that has been driven home to
> >> me many times is that no one person has 'the whole picture'
> >> when they go in to a process. Anyone who feels otherwise
> >> (i.e., that they know everything and it is up to the rest to
> >> catch up and agree) is just naive.
> >>   There is often a significant amount of mutual education in
> >> a group like ours: of people being educated about a topic
> >> that they thought they already knew. In this particular case,
> >> there is (IMO) a genuine difficulty about the nature of a
> >> reference model. There is also some inevitable to-ing and
> >> fro-ing over the scope.
> >>   I suggest that we trust the process and work towards a
> >> single understanding of what we are trying to do.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> On Jun 2, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thanks Sally. My impression was that near the end of
> >>>
> >> yesterday's call,
> >>
> >>> the TC reached consensus (not consensus by vote, but rather verbal
> >>> consensus with no dissenting opinions expressed) that our current
> >>> Figure 2-1 really represents a service orientation 
> reference model.
> >>> Furthermore, for some that was all we needed - while others
> >>>
> >> felt that
> >>
> >>> we needed more (i.e. there was not consensus on this point,
> >>>
> >> nor do I
> >>
> >>> expect that there would be given the 2 "camps" that have
> >>>
> >> formed). In
> >>
> >>> my opinion, all viewpoints are valid for those that hold them - we
> >>> just need a mechanism to reflect the consensus of the TC in
> >>>
> >> our work.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So to this end, we decided that the best approach forward was to
> >>> construct the 2 reference models described in my first
> >>>
> >> paragraph below
> >>
> >>> (2 e-mails down), the second one building on the first. This would
> >>> also allow us to keep the name of the TC as the SOA-RM TC, and not
> >>> change it to the SO-RM (Service Orientation RM) TC, 
> because we will
> >>> ultimately produce a SOA RM.
> >>>
> >>> Speaking personally, I believe that this is an excellent 
> approach -
> >>> i.e. first building a foundation (service orientation),
> >>>
> >> then expanding
> >>
> >>> on it for SOA. The intent of my "pulse check" proposal 
> was to raise
> >>> awareness that there were indeed 2 camps within the TC (and I will
> >>> assert that it was this way from the very start), which it did.
> >>>
> >>> And so here we are.
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>> Joseph Chiusano
> >>> Booz Allen Hamilton
> >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:54 AM
> >>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: [soa-rm]
> >>> Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting 
> Minutes June
> >>> 01, 2005[1].doc)   uploaded)
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>> I had to leave the call a bit early so I may have missed a point.
> >>> But right before I left Rebekah made, I thought, the point
> >>>
> >> that the TC
> >>
> >>> does not have concensus and we should focus on gaining concensus
> >>> around concepts rather than methods of graphical display or names.
> >>> I do not believe we have concensus on concepts which is 
> why I voted
> >>> 'yes' on your ballot proposal. I believe we need more 
> discussion to
> >>> achieve concensus only then should we adopt a formal means
> >>>
> >> to display
> >>
> >>> it or name it.
> >>> Your efforts to give the discussion momentum are appreciated.
> >>> Sally
> >>>
> >>> Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
> >>> Just to clarify, based on our discussion at the end of 
> today's call:
> >>>
> >>> Our current spec will be renamed to SO-RM (Service Orientation
> >>> Reference Model), and another will follow called SOA-RM
> >>> (Service-Oriented Architecture Reference Model) which will
> >>>
> >> extend the
> >>
> >>> SO-RM spec.
> >>>
> >>> And perhaps after that (within our TC, or perhaps within a
> >>>
> >> different
> >>
> >>> TC) we can have a POA-RM (Process-Oriented Architecture Reference
> >>> Model), which will extend the SOA-RM spec.
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>> Joseph Chiusano
> >>> Booz Allen Hamilton
> >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: cbashioum@mitre.org [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:45 PM
> >>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01,
> >>>> 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].do! c) uploaded
> >>>>
> >>>> The document named SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting
> >>>> Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) has been submitted by Mr
> >>>>
> >> Christopher
> >>
> >>>> Bashioum to the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC document repository.
> >>>>
> >>>> Document Description:
> >>>> Minutes for the Bi-Weekly teleconferenece call.
> >>>>
> >>>> View Document Details:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.p
> >>>> hp?document_id=12909
> >>>>
> >>>> Download Document:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.p
> >>>> hp/12909/Meeting%20Minutes%20June%2001%2C%202005%5B1%5D.doc
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
> >>>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.
> >>>> You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address
> >>>>
> >> into the
> >>
> >>>> address field of your web browser.
> >>>>
> >>>> -OASIS Open Administration
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>