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

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Joseph:

Seems we are talking oranges and oranges.  We both seem to agree that 
the Best practices is the place to reference mature standards.  Since we 
had been talking about our spec, that is where I had assumed you wanted 
to reference mature standards.

The definitions of "mature standards" and "best practices" are steeped 
in personal subjective judgment.  As a group, we have a difficult job to 
do - produce work that is relevant and meaningful while adhering to the 
expectations of a rapidly changing community.  We may call something 
mature yet it may be radically redefined tomorrow.  No way to guarantee 
static behaviour of standards.

I am counting on the team to constantly question and challenge these 
boundaries.  

As far as relevancy, it is our (including your ;-) jobs as TC members to 
make sure what we do is relevant.

Cheers

Duane

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com