[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
How about words
such as “The specifics of a business process do not change
the basic SOA concepts as described in the RM. However, the specific
architecture that one designs and implements will reflect <some> business
process. Within this context, the architecture should build upon specific
service instances which correspond to the real world effects that the business
process hopes to realize.” I thought that the W3C recognized that IT service (in particular web
service) interactions always occur via a virtual agent on both sides of the
interaction? Here we’re starting to get into the notion that there
are several ‘levels’ of critical entities within a service
interaction that all remain congruent to one another within the course of a
service interaction. Rebekah From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Comments inline: ******************************* From: Ken
Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] I think we need to add some words to the RM to capture
this discussion. We cover part of this in the beginning of Section 3.2.1
but need to be more specific that: DN: given that we have
scoped the RM for SOA to software architecture and it is abstract, is this
correct and relevant? How can a human interface with a SOAP node?
Since a human actor that invokes a service by using a SOAP client is invisible
to the service tier, it is probably not correct or relevant as worded. I
think I know what you are trying to say though.
DN: save this thought for
RA.
DN: agree
DN: or an unbounded array
of other options.
DN: concur.
D |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]