[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Antecedent. Antecedent. Where's my antecedent? ;-) Rex At 8:52 PM -0500 4/12/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote: >Mike, Ken > >Please check out my edits of the sections...There seemed to be good >and sufficient material for me to work with in what I started >from...Ugh! > >Bob > > >From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:03 PM >To: Francis McCabe >Cc: Mike Poulin; James Odell; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization > >I will reread but I thought the insistence was policies not >referring to contracts. > >On Apr 12, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > >>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. >>> >>>Ken >>> >>>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. >>>> >>>>- Michael >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "James Odell" >>>>To: <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>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! >>>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>Ken Laskey >>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>>McLean VA 22102-7508 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ken Laskey >MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >McLean VA 22102-7508 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]