RE: [soa-blueprints] Notes from the meeting

["Miko Matsumura" <mmatsumura@infravio.com>]

Someone was nice enough to point out (off list) that  

John Harby and Raghu Kodali commented on the original SOA Blueprints
"Generico" as submitted by The Middleware Company. They 

Is a bit of a sentence fragment.

How about if that reads:
John Harby and Raghu Kodali commented on the original SOA Blueprints
"Generico" as submitted by The Middleware Company. They commented that
the original goal of the blueprints effort was not so broad reaching.
John Harby pointed out that the scope was mostly ERP, portal, security
and a few other concerns. Raghu pointed out that the security stuff
needs an update...

-----Original Message-----
From: Miko Matsumura 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:26 AM
To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Minutes+blue6273@blueprints.jot.com
Subject: [soa-blueprints] Notes from the meeting

Hi Everyone,

Wanted to share some notes from the meeting:

John Harby and Raghu Kodali commented on the original SOA Blueprints
"Generico" as submitted by The Middleware Company. They 

Reza Shafii asked that formal definitions are needed to clarify what the
group means when they use terms like "service". The group suggested that
we use the terminology for SOA as defined by SOA-RM as the basis for our
blueprints work. Therefore, terms like "service" are defined as
currently specified by SOA-RM. This is not intended to be a blanket
adoption of RM terminology, but an attempt to forge a common
understanding against which we can contrast our working definitions.
Therefore we will assume that definitions people are using in this TC
are identical to those defined by SOA-RM unless otherwise specified.

Theo asked about collaboration process: I suggested that fine-grained
edits and contributions be made at:
http://blueprints.jot.com
While coarse grained discussion and intentions are expressed on this
email list. If changes are made on the wiki, a short description can be
sent to this list. 

Marc Adlam asked about whether this TC was chartered to develop a
methodology. Miko stated that methodology was a "side effect" from
creating blueprints. The act of moving from business use case
descriptions to implementable SOA parallels the act of building an SOA
in the real world. Therefore, it is likely that this TC will have some
methodological artifacts, such as one might find in the real world. This
TC is not chartered to create a single canonical methodology--therefore
contributions such as Cap Gemini's contributed notation methodology are
seen as useful and expedient tools rather than as universal "standards".
Donations of blueprints such as Generico or any future blueprints may or
may not use the CapGemini donated notation.

Jeff Lamb asked for a description of the go forward plan. Miko suggested
that it was as follows:

Co-evolution of the three major contributions to the TC:

1) The Generico Blueprint
2) The CapGemini Notation
3) The "Coalogic" case study as contributed by Dan Marchant of Wells
Fargo

Next logical steps would be to work on all three documents in the wiki
context, but notably the application of the capgemini notation to the
Coalogic work would be a great next step.

These minutes are going to be put up on the Wiki and can be amended
there. I'm not always the best note taker. Does anyone want to be
secretary of the TC?

Best,
Miko