Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better "Componentization"

[Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com>]

The flow of working draft 10 was a little rough when I
read through it.  This was expected with the addition
of new sections.  The roughest part for me was section
3.2 synching up with section 3.3.  It will take an
iteration or two to blend in the new sections.  I
posted issues 259-263 which discuss making the
sections flow more smoothly.  While the reading of
draft 10 is a little rough, the RM for SOA draft does
a good job explaining SOA concepts. I have already
applied information in the working draft to a project
I am currently working on.

Danny

--- Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:

> Joe,
> 
> I was struck by the same thing when reading through
> this yesterday.   
> What happened is the SOA discussion was added as
> Section 2 and  
> changes were made to the beginning of Section 3 (the
> v9 Section 2) to  
> make it consistent, but that leads to a lot of
> redundancy.  I think  
> we can avoid major restructuring by just making
> Section 3.1 much more  
> concise as an introduction to the remainder of
> Section 3 without  
> trying to restate what is mostly in Section 2.
> 
> Ken
> 
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> > While reviewing our excellent latest draft, I have
> experienced a  
> > growing concern that I feel is serious enough to
> bring up now to  
> > the TC as a whole, rather than as a single comment
> in an issues  
> > spreadsheet. I am also concerned that if we do not
> address this  
> > issue as soon as possible, it may prevent our spec
> from reaching  
> > OASIS memership approval.
> >
> > The issue: The organization of information in our
> spec is very  
> > poorly organized, leading to multiple repetitions
> of concepts and  
> > descriptions that make it very awkward to read and
> absorb.
> >
> > As one example of many, we discuss the notion of
> "service  
> > visibility" in at least 2 places: Line 195, and
> line 282. This not  
> > only makes for awkward reading, but also risks
> inconsistencies in  
> > descriptions of concepts throughout the spec due
> to the need to  
> > maintain descriptions in multiple places, and
> syncronize them.
> >
> > I therefore propose that we examine this aspect of
> our spec, and  
> > work to "componentize" our spec in a more
> organized, easy-to-absorb  
> > fashion. I would be very happy to work on a
> proposal for improved  
> > organization that will help us meet this goal
> (i.e. I am not merely  
> > suggesting this without being willing to take on
> the responsibility  
> > of making it happen).
> >
> > Thoughts? Comments?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Joe
> >
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Associate
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> >
> > 700 13th St. NW
> > Suite 1100
> > Washington, DC 20005
> > O: 202-508-6514
> > C: 202-251-0731
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 





		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs