[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Question of Introduction Consistency
You are right. We should pick a different word here. Frank Î On Apr 2, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Michael Stiefel wrote: > 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]