[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Public Comment
Comment from: email@example.com Name: Marbux Title: None Organization: None Regarding Specification: Second Draft Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture v1.0 Dear TC participants: I have attempted to review the draft from the viewpoint of a layman. My comments reflect that viewpoint. Lines 246-247. This new material presumes too much knowledge by laymen on the topic of Object Oriented Programming. SOA has been well explained earlier in the draft, complete with examples. However, fundamental relevant concepts of OOP are not explained, and the explanation of an "object" and its role is far too cursory; e.g., "packaging data with operations" and "melding of methods to a given data object." The distinction drawn between the OOP and SOA paradigms is sufficiently explained for a developer to understand. But for a document that is intended to be understandable to laymen as well, a better explanation of OOP and easily recognizable examples of an "object" would be helpful. It should not be assumed that a layman is familiar with those terms. Lines 344-345 contains a clause that likewise assumes too much knowledge on the part of the lay reader. "without the proper libraries being present the function call cannot complete." Laymen rarely know what a "library" is in the sense the term is used by programmers; a "function call" is another term of art not known to laymen. I could provide more examples if it would be helpful. But I think it would be far more helpful if the TC could arrange to have a layman with good editing skills but no programming experience whatsoever supervise a complete rewrite. I support the TC's goal of making the document informative for both software developers and laymen. But the document has not succeeded in delivering a product that is useful to laymen. But I still appreciated reading it very much. It did help me understand more of the relevant concepts.