RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better

I read

“ the specific architecture that one designs and implements will reflect <some> business process”

To infer that SOA will reflect business processes.

Duane

*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************

From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 2:40 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better

Duane –

I am not reading the words below to suggest BPM as necessary. Can you point out where the changed words between Ken’s original thought and my rewording indicate BPM? It may help me to understand where word selection may cause misinterpretation.

Rebekah

Rebekah Metz

Associate

Booz Allen Hamilton

Voice: (703) 377-1471

Fax: (703) 902-3457

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:34 PM
To: Metz Rebekah; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better

I disagree. SOA does not need BPM nor will all SOA’s be used for BPM. BPM is one of *many* possible “things” that may use SOA as a base layer. Listing only BPM infers some form of priority or preference. The SOA cannot see nor should it care that BPM is there. TCP/IP is not aware of services or BPM either but will likely be used in most implementations. It does not state anywhere in the TCP/IP specs that TCP/IP implementations will reflect business requirements or processes. Again – that is only one possible use of many.

Duane

From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:16 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
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]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:06 PM
To: Ken Laskey; Goran Zugic; Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com
Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better

Comments inline:

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:39 AM
To: Duane Nickull; Goran Zugic; Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com
Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better

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:

- a service consumer can be a human or a software agent;

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.

- a service consumer can invoke any number of services (including a single service in isolation) and can chain the output of some services to act as the input of others;

DN: save this thought for RA.

- from the perspective of a given service, the occurrence of such chaining would not be visible;

DN: agree

- the service consumer can be implementing a business process;

DN: or an unbounded array of other options.

- the specific 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 the business process and make use of specific service instances that corresponds to the real world effects that the business process hopes to realize.

DN: concur.

Now that said, and in full appreciation that we agreed earlier that mechanisms which combine services (e.g. choreography, orchestration) are out of scope, is it sufficient for words, such as those suggested above, to be included somewhere within the current discussion or do we need to pull it out into a subsection on its own? As an example of the former, we tried to deal with loose-coupling and coarse-grained with words at the end of Section 2.1.
DN: We used to have such words. Are they out of the doc now?

soa-rm message