RE: [soa-rm-ra] An epiphany

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I'll have to reread it again for the very first time. ;-)

It would be good to lose the department of redundancy department, but 
I still need a blueprint for cross-enterprise boundary SOAs, with the 
emphasis on the plural. So I need to be able to specify Service 
Descriptions and SLAs from a given specific implementation of our RA. 
And I think we need to have an RA the follows the RM and provides the 
basis for the things like the Federal Enterprise Architecture to be 
sustained consistently over the next decades. While The Open Group 
works to fit/get commercial solutions, the public space is too 
critical for cookie cutter ideas.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:43 AM -0700 1/15/09, Danny Thornton wrote:
>We are expanding on the concepts in the SOA-RM.  To cut the size of 
>the S0A-RA in half, what specific sections do you think could be 
>cut? 
>
>Danny
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [soa-rm-ra] An epiphany
>From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
>Date: Thu, January 15, 2009 8:56 am
>To: SOA RA <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>You guys may well not like this, but I believe that I have found a way
>to cut the size of the RA in half....
>
>I am not currently in a 'fully formed' state of this idea; but it goes
>something like this:
>
>There are primarily two perspectives involved in SOA ecosystems: the
>perspective of the code and the perspective of the ecosystem. In the
>former, the principal ideas are semantic engagement and counts-as. In
>the latter, the principal idea is public semantics. (I know that this
>is very cryptic, but it does unfold ...)
>
>On top of this is one further important concept of system cardinality:
>we have been talking explicitly about 1 system (the Enterprise SOA)
>and many systems (the Internet SOA). In fact, this is not fully
>realistic; this structure is itself recursive: we need to be able to
>talk about systems of systems of systems; etc. In effect, we need to
>be able to characterize how systems of systems are put together.
>
>Some implications that I can see are:
>1. no commitment to message exchange.
>2. no explicit commitment to description.
>3. instead is the concept of private action being interpreted as
>public joint action at a particular semantic engagement.
>4. to meet a given need may involve 'tunneling' through multiple
>layers of such interpretation.
>
>If this were to be fully worked out, it would result in something that
>would be better identified as SOA meta-architecture.
>
>It may also be too much.
>
>Noodles of the day :)
>Frank
>
>
>
>
>Content-ID: <bottom@fb57885b53c47c9e954df13ae0b04162>
>Content-Type: image/gif;
>  name="bottom.letterhead";
>Content-Disposition: inline;
>  filename="bottom.letterhead";


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670