[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency
I think it is very confusing to use the word capability in the same document, several times in the sense of the RM, and then in a different sense. Especially when you can use a different word other than capability to express the same idea. Michael At 10:50 AM 4/3/2006, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]