|I do not believe that we ever signed up for Michaels insistence on contracts not referring to policies. I for one do not.|
On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
It appears we agree on the specifics for policies and contracts, and indeed did discuss much of this before. I'm wondering if something critical got lost in the last Policy section shuffle that eld to the current text.
On Apr 12, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Mike Poulin wrote:
As I recall, a year ago I initiated a discussion here about relationship between Policies and Contracts. Now, it looks like James has picked up my position. I said that time that:
1) contracts (due to their private matter) may not refer to each other while policies may and effectively do
2) contracts may include more things than just policies or references to policies, e.g. a selection of a subset of services interfaces derived from the service description. This information is not really a policy though it may be expressed in the form of policy assertions
3) there may be different types of policies - for the service development and for the run-time. The latter must be mentioned in the service contracts as well as in the service descriptions (otherwise the consumer is not obliged to be compliant with non-specified policies), the former does not need such mentioning but they might be included into development tools and design controls.
In any case, Policies AND Contracts deserve much more attention in SOA RM.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Odell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:46:06 -0400
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 dont 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,
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free
Account at www.mail.com
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508