RE: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

I think it's fine to use "capability" in multiple ways, as it is a
somewhat broad term - as long as the intended meaning is clear in each
case.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:40 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency

The Introduction to the "Goals, Critical Success Factors and
Requirements starts out::

"A reference architecture is like an abstract machine. It is built to
realize some function and it, in turn, relies on a set of underlying
capabilites that must be present for it to perform. In the case of the
SOA RA, its purpose is to enable a system to be a Service Oriented
Architecture. The underlying capabilities are the particular
technologies that are used to realize the SOA; in particular technology
choices such as Web Service technologies, implementation technologies
are not part of an abstract RA. "

Are we not using the word capability here in a way that is different
from the use of the term in the RM? Here we seem to be using the word
capability to mean underlying technologies. In the RM we used the term
to indicated the underlying functionality that is exposed through the
SOA.

Michael