[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
I see no reason why what people are calling a SOA RM is not abstract enough for this definition. I wish they never used the word architecture in SOA. Maybe we should do what SOAP 1.2 did and make the acronym the name. Michael At 12:20 PM 6/7/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >Michael: > >It is in our charter: > >"Reference Model - A reference model is an abstract framework for >understanding significant relationships among the entities of some >environment, and for the development of consistent standards or >specifications supporting that environment. A reference model is based on >a small number of unifying concepts and may be used as a basis for >education and explaining standards to a non-specialist. [1] A reference >model is not directly tied to any standards, technologies or other >concrete implementation details, but it does seek to provide a common >semantics that can be used unambiguously across and between different >implementations." > >This definition is a mixture of quotes from several top software architects. > >Cheers > >Duane > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > >>"If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to >>everything else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it will >>be architecture." >> >>I have never seen satisfactory definitions for reference model and >>reference architecture to say what should be included in one as opposed >>to the other. Definitions are required, not analogies or examples. >> >>I think this is another issue that is a subtext to a lot of our >>discussions that has to be settled. >> >>It certainly is the subtext to the one document or two discussion. I got >>a sense at the last conference call, that having two documents was a way >>to finesse this issue without really dealing with it. >> >>Michael
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]