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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think we need to slightly expand our treatment 
of policy, but I don't think we should be getting 
too specific or detailed. We're just establishing 
a foundation, after all.

Cheers,
Rex

At 6:24 PM -0500 4/12/09, 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.
>
>- Michael
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Odell"
>To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:46:06 -0400
>
>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
>
>
>--
>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>Get a Free Account at <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!


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