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

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Duane,

Such 'best practice' stuff is the domain of the eGov TC - see their
document on ebMS recently - and note that the whole premise
behind best practice is some domain as a reference set.

IMHO ebSOA is a technical specification that provides the
mechanisms and components that allow implementers to
successfully leverage a broad range of OASIS technologies
together as a coherent whole - while delivering on core
SOA characteristics (therein is the challenge - figuring that out).

That is why I see BCM and EPR as instructive here - as
these are actual domains that are attempting to do exactly
this - provide people a roadmap to enable them to
successfully utilize SOA in a cost-effective and reliable
way that delivers the right amount of technology for
their business needs.   The US Government spent two
years and significant manpower developing BCM;
likewise the Norwegian Government has invested
two years of effort in the EPR work.  Not to mention
the huge effort dedicated to ebXML development
to date.

Learning from, leveraging and extending these
open public specifications is I believe a clear
win for ebSOA.

DW



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:46 PM
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
>