RE: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / EditorsActionItem, et al)

["Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>]

Joe,

It appears to me that you have a fear that some idea might be entered
into the best practices document where perhaps no best practice
currently exists that would fully satisfy your definition. By the way, I
would like to add "open" as a key requirement. IMHO the topic of shared
semantics is one such topic.

Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:46 AM
To: 'ebSOA'
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics /
EditorsActionItem, et al)


Thank Duane - my comment below that begins with "Very respectfully
disagree. IMHO, the answer should reference mature..." was actually in
reference to the Best Practices document. That is my core concern - that
we will offer what we term "best practices" that implementors cannot
even implement. At this point, I'm seriously questioning the connection
of this TC's work to (please pardon my saying this) reality.

Joe

Duane Nickull wrote:
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> The specification itself will not normatively reference other
standards
> (perhaps a non-normative reference as a possible implementation choice
> is possible). We are at a higher level than any specific concrete
> implementation.  We did agree to this.
> 
> That is the entire basis for why our TC will also publish a "best
> practices" document.  That document will speak to the implementors at
> the specific time and make such references.
> 
> I hope that works for you.
> 
> Duane
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> >Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>..How well-equipped will we be
> >>>to encourage adoption of our work if it relies so heavily on shaky
> >>>foundations?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>[DN]
> >>
> >>We will not rely on shaky foundations.  I have made this mistake
writing
> >>other architectural standards and advocate we do not repeat them
here.
> >>
> >>Adoption of our standard may not be measured in specific
> >>implementations.  A metric may be how people think going forward.
When
> >>someone asks the question "What is SOA and how can it benefit my
> >>company?", the answer should be "Pick up and read a copy of the
OASIS eb
> >>SOA Spec".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Very respectfully disagree. IMHO, the answer should reference mature
> >standards that have been widely adopted within industry and
government,
> >and for which there is a more than adequate level of available vendor
> >products, including some from what one would consider a major vendor.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >>Duane
> >>
> >>--
> >>Senior Standards Strategist
> >>Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >>http://www.adobe.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton