Jeff,
Didn't you propose the TOGAF reference?
All,
I think Jeff and I are both opposed to stating a
Reference Archicture is a design pattern because we
both see the use of design pattern in this context as
an incorrect statement.
Here are the proposed starts for the Reference
Architecture section:
Existing 0.2 draft version:
A reference architecture models the abstract
architectural elements in the domain independent of
the technologies, protocols, and products that are
used to implement the domain. It differs from a
Reference Model in that a Reference Model describes
the important concepts and relationships in the domain
focusing on what distinguishes the elements of the
domain; a Rreference Architecture elaborates further
on the model to show a more complete picture that
includes showing what is involved in realizing the
modeled entities.
Frank's revised definition based on several RA
comittee emails and conversations:
The SOA Reference Model defines reference architecture
as “an architectural design pattern that indicates
how an abstract set of mechanisms and relationships
realizes a predetermined set of requirements.” More
precisely, a reference architecture can be described
as an architectural pattern that provides a set of
predefined subsystems, specifies their
responsibilities, and includes rules and guidelines
for organizing the relationships between them [TOGAF
v8.1].
An explanation of an RA from Jeff but not intended to
be the definition in the RA document (Subject Re:
[soa-rm-ra] what is a generalized SOA RA?, Mon, 12 Nov
2007):
In a nutshell, a reference architecture is a reusable
asset whose purpose is to form a starting point for
architectural development. It can take many forms,
including architectural patterns (note I did not use
the term 'architectural design' pattern),
architectural best practices, architectural
principles, architectural frameworks, etc., and,
unlike our SOA-RA effort, reference architectures are
typically proven in use.
Some suggestins from Duane:
A reference architecture is a generalized view of an
purposeful architecture that may be specialized for
one or more domains of application. As such, a RA
often specifies the major components of a system or
systems, their externally visible properties and the
relationships amongst them in a manner abstract of
domain, technologies or specifics that would
constraint the RA from being applicable to the widest
possible scope of use.
--- "Jeffrey A. Estefan"
Frank,
As I stated before, I object strongly to this new
wordy addition. And what
section? Are you talking about section 1.1?
What was wrong with our opening paragraph of section
1.1? I thought
everybody agreed it was a reasonable defn of a
reference architecture (in
the general sense) and its relationship to a
reference model.
By all means, please DROP "design" from
"architectural design pattern."
There are architectural patterns and design
patterns; not architectural
design patterns. But again, I don't see the value
here.
I'd like to see any proposed addition or new
subsection in context with the
rest of Section 1 (Introduction) before passing any
final judgments. It's
not clear to me what is being dropped and what is
being added.
Could you send the latest draft of the proposed
completed Section 1?
Thanks...
- Jeff E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group
and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at: