Re: [soa-rm-editors] reminder: deadline is upon us...

[Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Perhaps there is some rewording needed.
Semantics is not an option! You get it whether you like it or not.
What is not only optional but inherently so is the extent to which  
the semantics is documented.
(The reason for this would take a proof that is a little long to fit  
on the back of an email)
Frank

On May 11, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Christopher Bashioum wrote:

> Attached is what I have so far for section 3 - conformance guidelines.
>
> I feel like it is pretty lite, and I really only used what was in  
> section 2
> of the document to determine what should go in here.
>
> I assumed that conformance guidelines are really a short list of  
> essential
> shall statements identifying what every architecture must have in  
> order to
> be conformant, wherease section 2 is a more thourough explanation  
> of what
> those items are.
>
> Question: I didn't see anything in the semantics section of the  
> document
> (section 2.3) that indicated that it was an essention element as  
> such for an
> SOA.  There was some text saying semantics of a service may be  
> documented,
> but the language seems to imply that it is not essential.
>
> Also, after writing this short (but incredibly concise ; ) section,  
> I still
> think that we have identified necessary items, but not sure we have  
> all of
> the essential items.  In particular, we don't deal with service  
> granularity
> (i.e., a service shall be limited in scope to provide a specific  
> function,
> but it will not provide the process flow - with the exception of an
> orchestration service), and we don't deal with the idea of a standard
> mechanism for binding to a service (i.e., the idea that service  
> providers
> "plug into" some sort of virtual backplane.
>
> This email may really be better sent to the whole TC - but I  
> thought I would
> forward to the editors first to see if I missed anything obvious.
>
>
> Matt - I made the deadline with tons of time to spare!!!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:05 PM
> To: Christopher Bashioum
> Cc: soa-rm-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-editors] reminder: deadline is upon us...
>
> How about 23:59.59?
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Christopher Bashioum wrote:
>
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Thanks for the polite push ; )
>>
>> Question, does Wednesday mean Wednesday AM, or does it really mean  
>> by 12:01
>> AM Thursday?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 11:32 AM
>> To: soa-rm-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [soa-rm-editors] reminder: deadline is upon us...
>>
>> Editors,
>>
>> So far I have initial submissions from Vikas, Frank, John and  
>> Michael.
>> This is a friendly reminder that some of you guys are still on the  
>> hook
>> for content by Wednesday.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <Section 3 Conformance Guidelines.doc>
>