[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] SOA RA
I think you can drop the word "sample" with no loss...: "a reference architecture is an abstract realization of the concept", reads OK to me -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Don Flinn [mailto:flinn@alum.mit.edu] Sent: 21 June 2005 22:37 To: Francis McCabe Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA RA 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]