OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] FW: Title for WP

Title: FW: Title for WP

How do the (last minute) changes made by OMG affect the vote/decision already taken by our TC?

Do we need to vote again?

Someone could point out to OMG that OASIS doesn’t have a specific process for adopting white papers either, but that didn’t stop us getting out of the door in a timely manner.

14 September? So no-one is going to have this on their company approved vacation reading lists...Pity




From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com]
Sent: 01 July 2009 20:18
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] FW: Title for WP


Hi all,

There was no OMG vote in Costa Rica.  Have forwarded the email of Jim Amsden’s notes, below.  The bottom line is that there can be no vote now until the next OMG meeting (week of 14 September).

-Jim Odell

------ Forwarded Message
From: James Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:07:17 -0400
To: James Odell <email@jamesodell.com>
Subject: Re: Title for WP

From my meeting notes:

SOA Joint Position Paper: OMG, OASIS and TOG

This presentation <http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2009-06-04> summarized the work Heather Kreger and others in the development of a paper <http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2009-06-03> that positions various OMG, TOG and OASIS SOA standards. generated a lot of conversation, but not necessarily the intended/anticipated result. The paper covered the following main areas:
1.        Positioning of Reference Models, Ontologies, Reference Architectures and Modeling Languages,
2.        A description of the current OMG, OASIS and TOG standards around SOA,
3.        Positioning of these standards in relationship to each other
4.        Areas of common agreement between the standards
5.        Guidance for potential consumers of these standards in order to get the most out of them in support of SOA initiatives
6.        A statement of intent for future collaboration to further support SOA adoption by minimizing fragmentation in the SOA standards market place resulting from gaps and overlaps in standards produced by these organizations

There are a number of facets to the discussion that need to be covered.

OMG Process: The OMG process is not very specific in dealing with white papers similar to the one submitted in this meeting. The current Policies and Procedures (P&P) don't address white papers, but apparently an older version did have language about both white and green papers. The P&P currently states the following concerning “discussion” papers:

This paper presents a discussion of technology issues considered in a
Special Interest Group of the Object Management Group. The contents of
this paper are presented to create discussion in the computer industry
on this topic; the contents of this paper are not to be considered an
adopted standard of any kind. This paper does not represent the
official position of the Object Management Group.

This raises a number of questions. Do SIGs vote to issue anything? Jim Odell says they can vote on position papers, but everything else must be done through a task force. Can a TF do the same things as a SIG? Yes, they can do anything a SIG can do, as well as recommend adoption of specifications to the Architecture Board. The Task Force can do what it likes, but all official OMG documents are actually approved by the Architecture Board, Domain, and Platform Technical Committees. If the TF did vote to issue a discussion paper, it would mean that this is the position of the TF and could potentially effect future TF votes, but would have no effect on OMG policies, position or standards.

OMG could use the recommendations in the white paper to evolve its Policies and Procedures, but that is probably unnecessary as the they already cover liaisons with other standards organizations and references to other related standards.

Document review comments: We got detailed review comments from Pete Rivett (Adaptive) and Fred Cummins (HP). It was not clear that many other ADTF members had read the paper yet. Pete and Fred had a lot of problems with the paper, and they were quite different. However, what was common is that their issues were about things that weren't actually in or implied by the paper! It appears early copies of the paper, and calling it “SOA Harmonization” created an impression and perspective that resulted in Pete and Fred addressing what they wished SOA harmonization to be rather than the content and recommendations in the paper. This was unfortunate, and was promoted by speculation from others who hadn't read the paper but projected their own ideas about SOA harmonization being about how the standards need to be changed to be aligned. Although this may be a desirable eventual goal, it was not the purpose of this paper. Rather this paper address how to make the best use of the standards that already exist.

Late changes: There was a flurry of changes made to the paper from late the week before the OMG meeting right up to the ADTF meeting, with an updated draft being sent in email during the meeting. This left the ADTF members wondering exactly what they might be voting on and an uneasy feeling that there may have been a lot of late changes indicating lack of common agreement. This was not actually the case. Most of the changes were editorial dealing with organization logos, copyright notices, positioning of the attribution list, whether it was a White Paper or just a paper, etc.

I tried to address all of these concerns in the ADTF presentation, in particular by providing slides that described the non-goals as well as the goals, a clearer positioning of standard types (RM, Ontology, RA and Modeling Language), and a summary of the recommendations for using the standards. This appeared to go over well. However, it was clear that the OMG community did not have time to sufficiently review the final version of the paper, especially in light of the clarifications in the presentation. And we needed time to decide what to do with the paper. The conclusion was:
1.        There would be no vote of any kind in ADTF or the TCs this meeting.
2.        We will propose an agenda item for the SOA Consortium for the next OMG meeting at San Antonio in September
3.        We will attempt to leverage the potential collaboration between the standards organizations by getting get a statement of support from the SOA Consortium for the standards positioning and usage guidance in the paper, and some statement about leveraging existing liaison relationships to foster further collaboration in support of successful SOA community adoption
4.        The ADTF will have a vote to recommend issuance of the paper as an OMG discussion paper for the purpose of stimulating additional discussion and influence on future standards activities concerning SOA
5.        We will then have a vote to adopt the position paper in the AB, Domain and Platform TCs based on the recommendation from the ADTF. This is because SOA crosses both the Domain and Platform TCs, and the paper proposes collaboration that should be addressed by the AB.

The effect of these adoptions will be only to indicate that the paper will be introduced formally as a discussion paper for consideration by the various effected task forces. It will simply raise the visibility of the paper, and its recommendations for specification positioning and use, and for future collaboration.

Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
Rational Enterprise Architecture Management

------ End of Forwarded Message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]