Re: [soa-rm] SOA RA

[Don Flinn <flinn@alum.mit.edu>]

Frank

Good definition.  However, the use of the word 'sample' gives me pause.
Do you believe that we can not define a single RA that can be used by
architects to create their specific architects?  If so, what would be
the thrust of the RA for this specification?

Don

On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 12:50 -0700, Francis McCabe wrote:
> Where a reference model is a description of the concepts that are  
> important in defining the concept, a reference architecture is an  
> abstract sample realization of the concept.
> 
> Frank
> 
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Don Flinn wrote:
> 
> > Joe
> >
> > The purpose of the Reference Architecture is to be a reference for
> > people that will be writing concrete architectures.  Therefore, we  
> > need
> > to be moderate in our term of concrete for the RA.  It is definitely
> > more concrete than the RM, but not as concrete as the architecture  
> > for a
> > specific instance.  We need a definition of an RA.  Any suggestions?
> >
> > Don
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 14:32 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your thoughts Ken.
> >>
> >> I wonder if it may be best to draw the RM/RA line sooner rather than
> >> later, as it will enable folks to think in terms of each of those  
> >> (as we
> >> know, RM=abstract, RA=concrete) rather than creating a mish mosh of
> >> things and then sorting it out later. The latter approach may
> >> potentially lead to information not being included in either or both,
> >> because folks were not thinking in terms of the specific context  
> >> (RM or
> >> RA).
> >>
> >> Just an alternate suggestion for us to perhaps consider as well.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> Joseph Chiusano
> >> Booz Allen Hamilton
> >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:18 PM
> >>> To: Don Flinn; Rex Brooks
> >>> Cc: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA RA
> >>>
> >>> This is a little late because I am catching up on random
> >>> threads but may I suggest a way forward:
> >>>
> >>> We seem to have general agreement that we will also write a
> >>> RA document so I think it is less critical to have a rigid
> >>> RM/RA line.  Whatever we write is likely to have a home in
> >>> one of the documents.  Let's allow some latitude in what
> >>> initially makes it into the RM because we can draw the line
> >>> later and move something to the RA document.  An editor can
> >>> even identify something as likely RA material.  What we gain
> >>> is the ability to capture our thoughts without debating
> >>> whether they are the right thoughts at the moment.
> >>>
> >>> My belated $0.02.
> >>>
> >>> Ken
> >>>
> >>> At 12:50 AM 6/12/2005, Don Flinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rex
> >>>>
> >>>> "Fear not" Nothing will be agreed upon until some time after the
> >>>> telecom.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I went to a play tonight with some Shakespearian scenes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 16:23 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I understand, Don, honest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But Duane said we would settle this in the meeting, and I
> >>>>>
> >>> am abiding
> >>>
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>
> >>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ciao,
> >>>>> Rex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 5:59 PM -0400 6/11/05, Don Flinn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Rex
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You have made a number of good points.  Let me try to give my
> >>>>>> viewpoint, which, I stress, is just my opinion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) IMO the TC has expressed an opinion that we should
> >>>>>>
> >>> have an RA in
> >>>
> >>>>>> addition to an RM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) We are spending a lot of energy and time in debating whether
> >>>>>> this concept or that concept should or shouldn't be in the RM.
> >>>>>> This is not limited to the SC but covers the many items
> >>>>>>
> >>> that I put
> >>>
> >>>>>> in the straw-man RA TOC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) A number of the TC members feel strongly that the RM should
> >>>>>> abide strictly with the reference model definition in
> >>>>>>
> >>> the present
> >>>
> >>>>>> RM specification, but are amenably, I believe, to having a
> >>>>>> companion RA document.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rather than continuously debate what should be where,
> >>>>>>
> >>> lets develop
> >>>
> >>>>>> the text for these concepts in the RA.  With the text we
> >>>>>>
> >>> will have
> >>>
> >>>>>> something (excuse the term) concrete to use to
> >>>>>>
> >>> potentially decide
> >>>
> >>>>>> later if certain text should be moved from the RA to the RM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I did not intend to carry out a straw poll, only to determine if
> >>>>>> there were enough members that were willing to
> >>>>>>
> >>> contribute to an RA.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Lastly, I'm not trying to rush this - too much -:).
> >>>>>>
> >>> However, if we
> >>>
> >>>>>> are to produce an RA for this specification we should begin the
> >>>>>> effort before too long.  I am sensitive to conflicting
> >>>>>>
> >>> obligations
> >>>
> >>>>>> on all our time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 12:09 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  Don,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  I really feel you are getting ahead of the TC here.
> >>>>>>>
> >>> We have not
> >>>
> >>>>>>> yet  settled the issue of the SO/SOA RM yet. We were told we
> >>>>>>> would  entertain a motion on it in our meeting next week. So
> >>>>>>> let's see how  that turns out before we start making
> >>>>>>>
> >>> plans for an RA yet, okay?
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  I appreciate your earnestness in wanting to get this
> >>>>>>>
> >>> behind us,
> >>>
> >>>>>>> but  let's not assume a fait accompli where there is only an
> >>>>>>> absence of  continued voicings of opposition. I have kept
> >>>>>>> relatively quiet on  this because my views should be known by
> >>>>>>> now, and it seemed like it  was only polite to refrain from
> >>>>>>> continuing to express it. I also  suggested paths to
> >>>>>>>
> >>> avoid making
> >>>
> >>>>>>> an SOA out of S alone, because I will  oppose that,
> >>>>>>>
> >>> but I suggest
> >>>
> >>>>>>> you not approach this as if it was a straw  poll to be
> >>>>>>>
> >>> taken on
> >>>
> >>>>>>> the basis of a lack of opposition or even a lack  of
> >>>>>>>
> >>> discussion.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Some of us are very busy with the upcoming DRM Public
> >>>>>>>
> >>> Forum Monday.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  Please don't take this wrong way, but also please don't put
> >>>>>>> words in  my mouth when I am only allowing the dust to settle.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  Ciao,
> >>>>>>>  Rex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  P.S. I would support an RA, regardless of whether SC
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ends up in
> >>>
> >>>>>>> an  SOA but we need to get that settled first before
> >>>>>>>
> >>> approaching
> >>>
> >>>>>>> the  subject.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  At 12:38 PM -0400 6/11/05, Don Flinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Last week I uploaded a straw-man Table of Contents,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> TOC, for a
> >>>
> >>>>>>> SOA  >Reference Architecture to be used for the second
> >>>>>>>
> >>> document
> >>>
> >>>>>>> of the  >specification at - http://www.oasis-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> open.org/committees/download.php/13012/ReferenceArchitectureT
> >>>>
> >>> OC_05-06.doc .
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does this begin to meet your concerns?  If so, please note
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> acceptance or
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> suggest modifications to the proposed TOC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is also a request to all who are interested in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> an SOA RA
> >>>
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> comment
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> on the TOC, either yea, nay or needs mod so we may
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> determine if
> >>>
> >>>> there is
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> any interested in producing an RA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When the concerns of all those interested are
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> satisfied, work
> >>>
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> begin
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> on writing the RA, provided, of course, that there
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> is an interest.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Don
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 15:46 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  I recently learned that a service consumer does
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> not belong
> >>>
> >>>>>>> in a RM  >>  because it would require infrastructure
> >>>>>>>
> >>> to connect
> >>>
> >>>>>>> that service
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> consumer
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  with services (and the same holds for connecting
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> services to
> >>>
> >>>>>>> each  >>  other). Once we begin representing
> >>>>>>>
> >>> infrastructure, it
> >>>
> >>>>>>> requires  >>  architecture - which is the territory of
> >>>>>>>
> >>> an RA not an RM.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  Which means that by definition of RM, it is impossible to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> create an RM
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  for SOA - such a thing must be an RA.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  Joe
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  Joseph Chiusano
> >>>>>>>>>  Booz Allen Hamilton
> >>>>>>>>>  Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com  >>  >>  >>  >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----  >>  > From:
> >>>>>>> McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca  >>  >
> >>>>>>> [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:27 PM  >>  > To:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> peter@justbrown.net; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org  >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> Subject:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> [soa-rm] RE: Consumer mechanism for "advertising"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> for a service
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nicely stated Peter.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Based on your clarification, I would propose
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> then that a
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> consumer (should the RM have one) has a set of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> properties
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (one of which could be state) that is not
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> defined by the RM
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> but are defined by a reference architecture.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wes
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From:       Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net]
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent:       June 10, 2005 1:32 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org  >>  > Cc: McGregor,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wesley
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject:    RE: Consumer mechanism for
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> "advertising" for a
> >>>
> >>>> service
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>  << File: Consumer concept.png >> Wes:
> >>>>>>>>>> We are back to the problem/issue of intent and context:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> from  >>  > the moment an application/agent establishes an
> >>>>>>> intention to  >>  > be a service consumer then it  >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> *is* a
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> service consumer (at the very least in its context,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> even
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if nothing out there recognises it as such); in the
> >>>>>>>
> >>> same  >>  >
> >>>
> >>>>>>> way that a service provider (and indeed a service) is a  >>  >
> >>>>>>> service provider (or a service) from the moment there
> >>>>>>>
> >>> is an  >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> intention for it to be so, irrespective of invocation,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> execution, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In an RA, I think it's more helpful to think of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> service  >
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> consumer as one concept. The "variants" you
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> propose are then
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> properties of an association (eg "state=invoked",  >>  >
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "state=run-time", etc) between the consumer "concept"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and the actual "real world" implementation (see
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> attached
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> diagram - I'm not sure what to call these
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> different "aspects"
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or states of being a consumer tho'...ideas on a
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> postcard please).
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There are practical and powerful reasons for
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> making this
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> conceptual separation, not least in the area of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> "semantic
> >>>
> >>>>>>> web  >>  > service" implementations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But I'll leave that stuff until Vancouver....
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Peter
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Don Flinn
> >>>>>>>> President, Flint Security LLC
> >>>>>>>> Tel: 781-856-7230
> >>>>>>>> Fax: 781-631-7693
> >>>>>>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
> >>>>>>>> http://flintsecurity.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Don Flinn
> >>>>>> President, Flint Security LLC
> >>>>>> Tel: 781-856-7230
> >>>>>> Fax: 781-631-7693
> >>>>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
> >>>>>> http://flintsecurity.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Don Flinn
> >>>> President, Flint Security LLC
> >>>> Tel: 781-856-7230
> >>>> Fax: 781-631-7693
> >>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
> >>>> http://flintsecurity.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -------------------
> >>>    /   Ken
> >>> Laskey
> >>>         \
> >>>   |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
> >>>   |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:
> >>> 703-983-1379   |
> >>>    \   McLean VA 22102-7508
> >>>            /
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > -- 
> > Don Flinn
> > President, Flint Security LLC
> > Tel: 781-856-7230
> > Fax: 781-631-7693
> > e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
> > http://flintsecurity.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Don Flinn
President, Flint Security LLC
Tel: 781-856-7230
Fax: 781-631-7693
e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
http://flintsecurity.com