RE: [soa-rm] What is our prority for an RA?

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

> "but rather should try to ensure that "semantic engagement" 
> is possible *directly* between two dissimilar services than 
> nonetheless respect the RM in its entirety."

I'm not certain that we can fully achieve this through our work - i.e.
we need help. The work of the OASIS SEE TC will be valuable here as
well, I believe.

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
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca 
> [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:45 PM
> To: peter@justbrown.net
> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] What is our prority for an RA?
> 
> Thanks Peter and to quote you:
> 
> "but rather should try to ensure that "semantic engagement" 
> is possible *directly* between two dissimilar services than 
> nonetheless respect the RM in its entirety."
> 
> Exactly what I was trying to get at but failed miserably it 
> seems. Service abstraction to a Meta level can add value. I 
> am just not sure how to articulate it yet.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wes
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] 
> Sent:	February 15, 2006 10:13 AM
> To:	'Frank McCabe'; 'Ken Laskey'
> Cc:	'SOA-RM'
> Subject:	[soa-rm] What is our prority for an RA?
> 
> Hmmm...what do we actually mean by "reference architecture"? 
> Is it (and advance apologies for possibly lax semantics):
> 
> a) an abstract architecture that is nonetheless specific to a 
> particular platform?; or
> b) an abstract architecture that is specific for a particular 
> implementation domain?
> 
> Ken's posting would seem to point to a), positioning WS* 
> against other possible platforms, for example.
> 
> My take, until now - not that I've thought it through 
> thoroughly - has been b), so for example the idea of a 
> reference architecture for the eGovernment space, which has a 
> lot of particular, common characteristics but needs 
> developing and implementing across different infrastructures.
> 
> I think both approaches are important but reflect differing 
> priorities as to architecting 'means' and 'objectives' (a and 
> b respectively): for example in the eGovernment space in 
> Europe, one of our priorities (and Matt hints at this in his 
> posting yesterday) is to provide a means of discovering, 
> invoking, orchestrating and all the other SOA stuff, across 
> administrative/jurisdictional boundaries *and* 
> infrastructures: for us, developing - for example - an RA for 
> WS* or .net or ebXML or whatever, is less compelling than 
> developing an RA for eGovernment, enabling us to identify 
> interoperability points and common semantics (or "semantic
> engagement") in *common operations* across dissimilar platforms...
> 
> FWIW, I think the debate about meta-services has missed a key 
> point here: in my opinion, we are not aiming for the 
> blossoming of 'higher-order' services that look after service 
> discovery and orchestration needs across such institutional 
> or infrastructure boundaries (as many of the exchanges seem to
> imply) but rather should try to ensure that "semantic 
> engagement" is possible *directly* between two dissimilar 
> services than nonetheless respect the RM in its entirety.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: 15 February 2006 00:56
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: SOA-RM
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [soa-ra] Telcon details for 2/15/06 (OOPS)
> 
> Frank,
> 
> I know you said you expect we'll just do one RA and then run 
> out of steam, but is it reasonable to consider two RAs: one 
> Web service based, the other non-WS.  The first is something 
> everyone is looking for and the second would demonstrate that 
> there might be more than just what everyone is looking for.
> 
> Also, would an RA include things like infrastructure services 
> to monitor service health and performance?
> 
> Just some ideas before I forget them again.
> 
> Ken
> 
> On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:
> 
> 
> 	This is the agenda and access details for the Reference 
> Architecture SC telcon on 2/15/06.
> 
> 	At this time, the SC has not been set up formally by 
> the OASIS staff. (Action pending)
> 
> 
> 	Agenda:
> 	1. Administrivia
> 	  Rollcall
> 	  Scribe
> 	2. OASIS process
> 	3. Requirements capture
> 	4. AOB (Any Old B***)
> 
> 	Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 	The telephone details are:
> 
> 	CALL DATE: FEB-15-2006 (Wednesday)
> 
> 	CALL TIME: 08:00 AM PACIFIC TIME
> 
> 	DURATION:  1 hr 30 min
> 
> 	USA Toll Free Number: 888-455-0046
> 	USA Toll Number: +1-210-234-0034
> 
> 	PASSCODE: 10564
> 	********
> 
> 	Press *6 mute/unmute individual line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>