RE: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from Everware-CBDi on "In Search of a Common SOA Language"

["Metz, Rebekah" <metz_rebekah@bah.com>]

Title: Re: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from Everware-CBDi on "n Search of a Common SOA Language"

In re-reading my last email, I may have unintentionally focused on the existence of multiple players in the Reference Model Landscape.  I agree that the RM, or any model, provides a point of reference for discussion.  In fact, I think that the CBDI analysis is valuable so that we, as a community, can understand where/how different efforts relate to one another.  I've read the report several times over the weekend and found the summary of key definitions from in each model quite useful.   

 

However, in reading through the section entitled 'Differences among the Reference Models,' the 'verdict' for each fundamental concept seems to waiver between Reference Architecture and Reference Model as a point of comparison.  I wonder if it might not be beneficial to others who are trying to understand the essence of Service Oriented Architecture to see how the the relative strengths and weaknesses of a Reference Model vs.. a Reference Architecture differ? 

 

From this perspective, a key strength of the SOA-RM is how it encourage both the business and technology side to move toward a common basis of understanding - independently of the mechanisms used to implement. 

---

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:39 PM
To: Metz, Rebekah; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; Dave Mayo
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from Everware-CBDi on "n Search of a Common SOA Language"

Rebekah et al:

I think if anything, the CBDI article may have misstated the intent.  David Mayo was at the event in VA earlier this week and is aware of the Reference model.  Lawrence Wilkes is of course a member of the TC too and has said kind things about the RM.

The Reference Model was never intended to the the singular point of reference that the entire industry had to agree with, but it does give them a point of reference.  As such, I think the article tries to balance the model with other work to see where alignment is (although I have to state I have not read it).

Dave – anything to add?

Duane


On 1/26/07 6:21 AM, "Metz, Rebekah" <metz_rebekah@bah.com> wrote:

SOA-RM'ers:
I receive the monthly newsletter from CBDi and usually find much useful and insightful information.  I was disappointed to receive this month's newsletter with the following headline "in Search of a Common SOA Language."  The article starts out with "we believe that a widely accepted reference model for SOA will accelerate the take up of SOA, since tool vendors and practitioners will have a more solid and common base to work from."

As part of the reference model landscape, the following sources were analyzed:
W3C Web Services Architecture
OASIS SOA-Reference Model
IBM UML 2.0 Profile for Software Services
OpenGroup Open SOA Ontology
UK Ministry of Defence Ministry of Defence Architectural Framework Metamodel
Everware-CBDi "A Meta Model for Service Architecture and Engineering"

I'm working through the article in a bit more depth today....but would welcome a discussion on this list on the validity of the strengths and weaknesses that were identified.


The full article can be found at:  http://www.cbdiforum.com/bronze/journal/2007-01/in_search_common_soa_language.php

Rebekah

--
**********************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.           *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee    *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com                    *
Music: http://www.mix2r.com/audio/by/artist/duane_nickull*
**********************************************************