[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
Do you think we need an ontology pattern? :) -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:52 AM To: Marc Adlam; marchadr@wellsfargo.com; Marc.Davies@uk.fujitsu.com; mmatsumura@infravio.com; steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; Theo.Beack@softwareagusa.com; klaskey@mitre.org Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services Marc wrote: "What I've noticed on this TC so far is that we struggle with semantics in a way that's similar to what first-time SOA implementers face. We are looking for standard definitions, e.g., give me one standard definition of a service, one standard definition for SOA, etc., so I can document my patterns in a consistent manner. I see organizations adopting SOA who are trying to solve these semantic problems as well: one definition for order, one for customer, etc. Short-term, we in the Blueprints TC have agreed to look to SOA-RM for standard definitions, and I see that as a welcome development. Patterns and semantics should enjoy a separation of concerns." + 1 C'est notre raison d'être (it is our reason for being) Duane
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]