Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Than ks Jim,

I agree about Policies pertaining to more than just contracts. I 
think our focus on crossing organizational boundaries tends to make 
us think along those lines more than we would if we were more focused 
within an enterprise boundary. Role policies, for instance, are more 
routine within an enterprise, and rules for what happens when events 
are reported are often more prescribed.

I'd just add a section for Policies outside Contract context.

Cheers,
Rex

At 5:46 PM -0400 4/11/09, James Odell wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having sat 
>through the recent spate of meetings, I have the following say about 
>the reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>
>Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a 
>coherent and logical manner.  Perhaps, it is because I read it too 
>many times now.  But, I don't think so.
>Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work needed on 
>the SOA-RA at this point in its development.  We need to get it 
>released for public comment - without compromising quality and 
>understandability, of course.
>Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to suggest a 
>reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>
>1)  Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier than 
>they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages).  Since policies - IMO - 
>are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like to see them 
>addressed earlier.  (My personal opinion is that policies are not 
>mentioned anywhere near the amount that they should. For example, 
>they are used in events, composition of services, roles, and 
>organizations.  However, since this would involve additions to the 
>current document, I will not push this)
>
>2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts. 
> While policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone 
>concept - which neither depends on nor is used solely with Contract. 
> (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies as a separate notion.)  Why is 
>this reasonable?  Because policies are used in a variety of 
>situations - only one of which is contracts.  By placing Policies in 
>lock step with (and almost subordinate to) with Contracts is not 
>appropriate, IMO.  
>
>3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct 
>subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5).  
>
>In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of Policy and 
>not require much change to the current document.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>Jim


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