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

[James Odell <email@jamesodell.com>]

Rex,

Yes, I agree.  A section for Policies outside Contract -- in addition to the
leaving a  Policies and Contracts -- makes good sense to me.

Ciao,
Jim

On 4/11/09 7:41 PM, "Rex Brooks" indited:

> 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
>