In this case this is absolutely fine. Composability is on the
execution level – not lifecycle
From: James Odell
[mailto:email@jamesodell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:41 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday [was:
[soa-rm-ra] p ositioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business]
Mike,
Perhaps I chose poorly with the term “responsibility”.
First, I can imagine Accept order, Fill Order, Ship Order and Close Order are
services that an be requested and provided in their own right.
Second, I can imagine that a a more coarse-grained service is also registered
that could — if so request — choreograph the finer grained services.
In this way, a requester may cheese to limit its request to a Fill Order
Service or request the whole choreographed service. Also, I imagine that
the whole choreographed service could be thought of as aggregating the
finer-grain services under a single physical “aggregated” umbrella, called
Process order. So, I do not really mean "responsibility for the existence"
-- only a whole part relationship.
Cheers,
Jim
------ Forwarded Message
From: Mike Poulin <mpoulin@usa.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:27:48 -0500
To: "Lublinsky, Boris" <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>,
James Odell <email@jamesodell.com>,
<soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday [was:
[soa-rm-ra] p ositioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business]
James,
my answers are in a bit different angle than Boris' ones.
You say "For example a Process Order service could defined as a SOA
service that has responsibility for the existence for other first class
services that are composed (e.g., Accept order, Fill Order, Ship Order and
Close Order) ." If you really mean "responsibility for the
existence" then I would not recognise Accept order, Fill Order, Ship Order
and Close Order as services. They are rather functions of the Process Order
Service or, as you suggested further, because they do not meet, at least, two
principles of service orientation - Reusability and Autonomicy.
The problem is not in how they are involved into collaboration - via orchestration
or not , the problem is in whether they exist as services on their own or as
components of something else. BTW, to orchestrate something it is not necessary
to use BPML or services. Traditional interaction between components in the
Command or Chain of Command Patterns, or Mediator Pattern is an orchestration
as well.
Returning back to your example, I would say that to satisfy the concept of
aggregation (by Duane/UML), your phrase might be modified a bit and sound like
this: "Process Order service could defined as a SOA service that has
responsibility for the engaging/utilisation of . other first class services
that are composed (e.g., Accept order, Fill Order, Ship Order and Close Order)
together to deliver the result of the Process Order service"
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Lublinsky, Boris"
To: "James Odell" , soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday [was: [soa-rm-ra] p
ositioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:43:31 -0500
I think
that there is a huge difference between composite objects and composite
services. The difference is in the fact, that unlike object, an instance of the
service is never explicitly created. Service is a singleton (load-balanced,
etc), which always exists, while an object instance is explicitly created for
interaction.
So service composition/aggregation is only on the interaction, not lifecycle
level
From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:23 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday [was: [soa-rm-ra]
p ositioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business]
Additionally in UML “composite
aggregation”, the composite object has responsibility for the existence and
storage of the composed objects (parts). So can a composite service be
thought of as having the responsibility for the existence and storage of the
composed objects (parts)? I would say yes — but is this always true?
For example a Process Order service could defined as a SOA service that
has responsibility for the existence for other first class services that are
composed (e.g., Accept order, Fill Order, Ship Order and Close Order).
Here, the compositing service could include service orchestration, as
Duane suggests.
On the other hand, Could I have a service that is a “taxonomic” aggregation.
For example, a Process Payment service may simply consist of
various kinds of first class payment services, such as Cash Payment, Credit
Card Payment, Wire Transfer payment, etc). However, one could also argue
that event this could be thought of a composite, because it the responsibility
for the existence and storage of the composed services. However, this may
or may not involve orchestration — only part whole.
-Jim Odell
On 9/25/09 6:14 PM, "Duane
Nickull" indited:
Via Aggregation.
Aggregation is a UML pattern whereby the parts are “used” by the whole.
If the whole does not exist, the parts can exist which is necessary for
re-use. Composition (by contrast) is a UML pattern whereby the parts are
“part of” the whole, hence their lifecycle is tied to the lifecycle of the
whole. When the whole ceases to exist, so do the parts, hence
making “reuse” not possible.
I think aggregation is a better term, however the press and others have already
gone with “service composition” as a buzzword. Service Orchestration is
just as good as aggregation IMO.
Duane
On 9/25/09 2:50 PM, "Lublinsky, Boris" <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> wrote:
If the services are not composable, then how are they better compared to
existing applications
--- original message ---
From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday [was: [soa-rm-ra]
positioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business]
Date: September 25, 2009
Time: 4:41:26 PM
Duane, I'm picturing you tugging on Superman's cape, while spittin' into
the wind, tilting at windmills and messin' with Bad Bad LeRoy Brown,
while sliding into heaven sideways, brew in hand singing, "What a
Ride!"
You're right, and so is Frank, and I definitely prefer "aggregate-able
or capable of being included in various types of aggregations,"...
but I think the boat already left, folks. We don't have to catch up with
it nor need we catch the next one. It will go as it will.
I personally don't have strong enough feelings about it to be road kill
for it or against it. I happen to be involved in a set of SOA services
that absolutely MUST be composable, but I am satisfied that they will be
regardless of how this sentence in theSOA-RAF introduction is worded.
It makes it marginally easier for me to get the business audiences I
deal with to act right if "composable" services is something I can
point
to when or if we get people insisting on something really dumb, like
"Point-to-Point" is the only distribution protocol that counts,"
or "we
can use the rules for RSS Feeds for all distribution." I suppose its not
impossible, but I don't really expect to see it.
BTW, I don't read the sentence to mean that ALL independent services
MUST also be composable. It means " a network of independent services
and/or composable services." I think independent composable services is
almost a contradiction of terms or almost an oxymoron.
Cheers,
Rex
Duane Nickull wrote:
> My take on this:
>
> http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/09/soa-anti-patterns-service-composition.html
>
> D
>
>
> On 9/25/09 1:21 PM, "Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
> I do not have any strong objections.
>
> 'Composable' means to me that the service may be
composed; the
> question is - composed by what and how this
corresponds to
> 'independent'? 'Composite' or 'aggregate' (as Ken
pointed once) is
> the service, which is composed already by other
services, which
> comprises other services, i.e. it is not
independent. This is what
> I tried to "EmFasis" :-)
>
> You, folks, decide.
>
> - Michael
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ellinger, Robert S (IS)"
<robert.ellinger@ngc.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/robert.ellinger@ngc.com>
>
> > To: "Lublinsky, Boris" <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
>, "Mike
> Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
>, soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for
Wednesday [was:
> [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp between IT
and business]
> > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:01:34 -0500
> >
> >
> > Mike, I like the sentence. Boris, I
think that "composable
> services" is
> > the correct term. I've heard many
"experts" and "gurus" use the term
> > and concept since at least 2003 and seems to
me to put the
> "EmFasis on
> > the rite Silobbal", as my dad would say.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:50 PM
> > To: Mike Poulin; Ellinger, Robert S (IS);
Lublinsky, Boris;
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for
Wednesday [was:
> > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
between IT and business]
> >
> > Composable?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:27 PM
> > To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); Mike Poulin;
Lublinsky, Boris;
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for
Wednesday [was:
> > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
between IT and business]
> >
> > Bob,
> > this is the phrase:
> >
> > From a holistic perspective, a
SOA-based system is a network of
> > independent services, machines, the people
who operate, affect,
> use and
> > govern those services as well as ...
> >
> >
> > I propose to say: "...a network of
independent and composite
> services,
> > machines, the..."
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ellinger, Robert S
(IS)" <robert.ellinger@ngc.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/robert.ellinger@ngc.com>
>
> > > To: "Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
>, "Lublinsky, Boris"
> > <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
>, soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
between IT and business]
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:40:28 -0500
> > >
> > >
> > > There was one sentence that you sent
that I could not make head or
> > tail
> > > of as I noted. Otherwise, I
thought I had incorporated all of your
> > > comments
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:31 PM
> > > To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); Mike
Poulin; Lublinsky, Boris;
> > > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
between IT and business]
> > >
> > > I am afraid, I am lost. I do not see
some of the crucial changes I
> > > advocated for and you agreed to
accommodate:
> > >
> > >
> > > "The SOA Ecosystem described in
this document must be understood in
> > > terms of its support of business
services."
> > > - MP - great!
> > >
> > > "Business services provide business
functionality in pursuit of
> > business
> > > outcome; while SOA services provide IT
artifacts that facilitate
> > > connectivity of functional units to
realize and support the
> business
> > > services."
> > > - MP - my proposal: 'Business services
provide business
> functionality
> > in
> > > pursuit of the business outcome; while
IT artifacts facilitate
> > > connectivity of functional units to
realize and support the
> business
> > > services.'
> > >
> > > "Therefore, SOA is neither wholly
IT nor wholly Business, but is of
> > both
> > > worlds."
> > > - MP - great! You commented: 'This
doesn't make sense to me. It
> is not
> > > connected to SOA in anyway' but left the
statement. I am for having
> > this
> > > statement as it is (it is not my text
but very right one IMO)
> > >
> > > "Neither Business nor IT completely
own, govern, and manage
> this SOA
> > > Ecosystem. The SOA Ecosystem must
accommodate both sets of concerns
> > for
> > > to fulfill its purpose and
potential."
> > > - MP - great!
> > >
> > > "Business needs to drive the
development of services delivered
> through
> > > processes and its supporting IT, which
provides the capability that
> > > satisfies those needs. This is the
business value of SOA."
> > > - MP - development of services is not
necessary delivered through
> > > processes and supporting IT. This is why
my proposal is:
> > > 'Business needs to drive the
development of services, which
> provides
> > > the capability that satisfies those
needs. This is the business
> value
> > of
> > > SOA.'
> > > or
> > > 'Business needs to drive the
development of services delivered
> > through
> > > Business and IT, which provides the
capability that satisfies those
> > > needs. This is the business value of
SOA.'
> > >
> > > (i.e. none Business or IT , or both; SOA
is in between them)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus, my variant of the text looks like
this:
> > >
> > > The SOA Ecosystem described in this document
must be understood in
> > terms
> > > of its support of business services.
Business services provide
> > business
> > > functionality in pursuit of the business
outcome; while IT
> artifacts
> > > facilitate connectivity of functional
units to realize and
> support the
> > > business services. Therefore, SOA is
neither wholly IT nor wholly
> > > Business, but is of both worlds. Neither
Business nor IT completely
> > own,
> > > govern, and manage this SOA Ecosystem.
The SOA Ecosystem must
> > > accommodate both sets of concerns for to
fulfill its purpose and
> > > potential. Business needs to drive the
development of services,
> which
> > > provides the capability that satisfies
those needs. This is the
> > business
> > > value of SOA.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Ellinger, Robert S
(IS)" <robert.ellinger@ngc.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/robert.ellinger@ngc.com>
>
> > > > To: "Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
>, "Lublinsky, Boris"
> > > <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
>, soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
between IT and business]
> > > > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:56:23
-0500
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009
11:31 AM
> > > > To: Lublinsky, Boris; Mike Poulin; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the
cusp between IT and business]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Boris has reminded me one thing: in
the paragraph following
> the two
> > > > paragraphs we are discussing now we
say something like 'SOA is a
> > > network
> > > > of independent services...' I would
modify this phrase a bit
> saying
> > > > something like 'SOA is a network of
independent and composite
> > > > services...'
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I did not mention this
earlier.
> > > >
> > > > This is all what I wanted to say
about SOA and Buz.
> > > >
> > > > - Michael
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Lublinsky, Boris"
> > > > To: "Mike Poulin" , soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the
cusp between IT and business]
> > > > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:04:35
-0500
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I tend to agree with Mike/jeff
> > > > See below
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009
5:15 AM
> > > > To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro discussion
for Wednesday [was:
> > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the
cusp between IT and business]
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > I believe service orientation has
the enormous potential to
> become
> > the
> > > > basic business operational model
and SOA will be the basis of the
> > > > Business Architecture.
> > > >
> > > > Since we do not have time for this
discussion now, let's
> return to
> > our
> > > > text.
> > > >
> > > > B.L. Moreover, as I re read the
text I am realizing more and more
> > that
> > > > this is not so much about SOA but
mostly about ESB. I am of
> course
> > > over
> > > > simplifying, but hopefully you got
the jest. We managed to
> leap frog
> > > > business architecture and
servicizing the enterprise and jump
> > directly
> > > > into the issues of service
interaction - ecosystem. This is fine,
> > but
> > > > who is going to live in this
wonderful ecosystem.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I hope to set in the
RA standard is an open
> door to
> > the
> > > > Business opportunity of SOA instead
of locking it in IT.
> > > >
> > > > This means I vote for enough
'ambiguity' in the text that would
> > allow
> > > > anybody to go with SOA in both -
technical and business -
> > directions,
> > > if
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > B.L. Fair enough. Lets create the
door, but may be, just may
> be open
> > > it
> > > > up slightly for the next review.
This is why I think, the
> text under
> > > > discussion, does not belong in the
ecosystem, but rather
> above it.
> > We
> > > > talk about business/IT alignment
and then define ecosystem
> > > >
> > > > The following is my modifications
to the text that together
> aim only
> > > one
> > > > statement: "SOA is neither
wholly IT nor wholly Business, but
> is of
> > > both
> > > > worlds." Particularly:
> > > >
> > > > a) I agree in full with:
> > > > <
> > > > components and subsystems. They
must be understood within their
> > > context
> > > > or environment; particularly, when
there are many
> interactions among
> > > the
> > > > parts. For example, a biological
ecosystem is a self-sustaining
> > > > association of plants, animals, and
the physical environment in
> > which
> > > > they live. Understanding an
ecosystem often requires this
> holistic
> > > > perspective of the system and its
environment rather than one
> > focusing
> > > > on the system's individual
parts.>>
> > > >
> > > > b) I DISagree with << The SOA
Ecosystem described in this
> document
> > > must
> > > > be understood in terms of its
support of business services,
> which is
> > > its
> > > > environment.>>
> > > > My proposal is this:
> > > > << The SOA Ecosystem
described in this document must be
> understood
> > in
> > > > terms of its support of business
services.>>
> > > >
> > > > B.L. See comment above
> > > >
> > > > c) I DISagree with <<
Business services provide business
> > functionality
> > > > in pursuit of the business outcome;
while SOA services provide IT
> > > > artifacts that facilitate
connectivity of functional units to
> > realize
> > > > and support the business services.
Therefore, SOA is neither
> wholly
> > IT
> > > > nor wholly Business, but is of both
worlds. >>
> > > > My proposal is this:
> > > > <
> > > > outcome, together with its
technical realization and support
> > provided
> > > by
> > > > Information Technology. Therefore,
SOA is neither wholly IT nor
> > wholly
> > > > Business, but is of both
worlds.>>
> > > >
> > > > B.L. How about:
> > > > << SOA is neither wholly IT
nor wholly Business, but is of both
> > > worlds.
> > > > Without involvement of the
business, defining service
> functionality
> > > > based on the enterprise business
model and aligned with the
> > enterprise
> > > > business processes, SOA can't
fulfill the promise of business/IT
> > > > alignment and support for flexible,
process-driven enterprise.
> > Without
> > > > involvement of IT, implementing SOA
ecosystem, supporting
> flexible
> > > > service deployment, interactions,
monitoring and management SOA
> > can't
> > > > fulfill the promise of scalable,
maintainable IT.>>
> > > >
> > > > d) I DISagree with <<
Business needs drive the development of
> > services
> > > > delivered through IT, which
provides the capability that
> satisfies
> > > those
> > > > needs. This is the business value
of SOA.>>
> > > > My proposal is:
> > > > << Business needs to drive
the development of services, which
> > provides
> > > > the capability that satisfies those
needs. This is the business
> > value
> > > of
> > > > SOA.>>
> > > > or
> > > > << Business needs to drive
the development of services delivered
> > > through
> > > > Business and IT, which provides the
capability that satisfies
> those
> > > > needs. This is the business value
of SOA.>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > - Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Ellinger, Robert S
(IS)" To: "Mike Poulin" , "Lublinsky,
> > > Boris"
> > > > , rexb@starbourne.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Laskey, Ken" , soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the
cusp between IT and business]
> > > > > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009
19:30:41 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We are trying to get to the
same concept, but really what
> is being
> > > > > discussed is a cultural
paradigm shift. In my view, the
> execution
> > > > > context is the technical
context within which the service
> > components
> > > > > exist and within in which they
are executed as enablers and
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > the process. The service
components are the parts and
> > subassemblies.
> > > > > The process flow, which is
part of the execution context, as
> > defined
> > > > by
> > > > > the orchestration or
choreography (both of which have business
> > rules
> > > > > engines to ensure that
policies/standards/business
> rules/etc. are
> > > > > followed).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Business process modeling as
instantiated by the assembled
> of the
> > > SOA
> > > > > service components, with the
associated business rule,
> links the
> > > > system
> > > > > to the business processes.
Provided that the business processes
> > > serve
> > > > > the goals or objectives or the
business (that is provides
> value to
> > > the
> > > > > business) then the tools as
instantiated in the SOA service
> > > multiplies
> > > > > the effectiveness of the
process.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The cultural shift involves
the fact that when business
> challenges
> > > or
> > > > > opportunities arise, the
business processes and SOA supporting
> > > > services
> > > > > can meet those challenge
because SOA enable agile systems. I
> > define
> > > > > agility as "successful
response to unexpected challenges and
> > > > > opportunities." BTW, this
is the definition of the Agility
> Forum
> > > > (circa
> > > > > 1990) associated with Lehigh
University (that is Nagel and his
> > group
> > > > > that wrote the book on the
agile enterprise). Currently, the
> > > > monolithic
> > > > > architecture of most ERP-like
systems do not allow agility,
> while
> > > > > functional architecture place
emphasis on optimizing for the
> > > function;
> > > > > creating silos. There is an
axiom in Systems Engineering that
> > > > > optimizing the subsystems, sub-optimizes
the system. SOA
> enables
> > > both
> > > > > optimization and agility of
the system, but requires mapping of
> > the
> > > > > system to the organization's
processes as the price
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I could and have said a great
deal more, but I think that is
> > enough.
> > > > > The linkage is there for
anyone to get the maximum value out of
> > the
> > > > SOA
> > > > > and both the business
processes and the composite applications
> > > > (process
> > > > > assembled service
components???) or whatever operating in the
> > > > execution
> > > > > context, must enable and
support the processes. As the
> processes
> > > > change
> > > > > in response to challenges and
opportunities, both the processes
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > composite application must
respond quickly and
> successfully. This
> > is
> > > > > not the way it is done now,
and that is the cultural change
> that
> > is
> > > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 24,
2009 7:18 PM
> > > > > To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS);
Lublinsky, Boris;
> rexb@starbourne.com
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
> > > > > Cc: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on
the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert,
> > > > >
> > > > > as we know SOA defines
Execution Context. Since we never
> defined
> > > what
> > > > it
> > > > > includes, I suggest (and
promote this opinion) that EC includes
> > > > Business
> > > > > EC and Technical EC. Business
services cannot be 'the
> environment
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > SOA Ecosystem' because it is
included into SOA. Business EC
> > defines
> > > > > business execution policies
and Technical EC defines technical
> > > > execution
> > > > > policies. SOA Ecosystem
comprises both business and technical
> > > realms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phrase "while SOA
services provide IT artifacts that facilitate
> > > > > connectivity of functional
units to realize and support the
> > business
> > > > > services."" has a
problem because SOA service does not
> necessary
> > > > > "facilitate connectivity
of functional units". For instance,a
> > > > > self-contained stand-alone
business technical service
> realises its
> > > own
> > > > > business function or feature
w/o joining with other "functional
> > > > units".
> > > > > Plus, SOA Service may or may
not contain any IT artefacts. Time
> > when
> > > > SOA
> > > > > was considered a pure
technical thing is gone (and for good).
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with you on "The
value of IT is the same as any other
> > tool".
> > > > > This is why I think that
statement " Business needs drive the
> > > > > development of services
delivered through IT, which
> provides the
> > > > > capability that satisfies
those needs. This is the business
> value
> > of
> > > > > SOA" requires
corrections. Development of services is not
> > necessary
> > > > > delivered through IT, it may
be purely manual business
> service and
> > > > many
> > > > > services of such nature exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on my discussion in
several Business Architecture
> groups on
> > > the
> > > > > Web, any business process in
Business may be defined as
> business
> > > > service
> > > > > with or without technical
component. Implementation of the
> > business
> > > > > service, as we know, is not
that important for service-oriented
> > > > > Architecture.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we state that SOA positions
BETWEEN Business and IT, we
> MAY NOT
> > > > > attribute it to IT only and
confront it with the business
> service.
> > > > This
> > > > > is illogical.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Ellinger, Robert S
(IS)"
> > > > > To: "Lublinsky,
Boris" , rexb@starbourne.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Laskey, Ken" , mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
,
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on
the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009
10:19:49 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See below
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 24,
2009 10:58 AM
> > > > > To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); rexb@starbourne.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
;
> Lublinsky, Boris
> > > > > Cc: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on
the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea what this
means:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The SOA Ecosystem
described in this document must be
> understood
> > in
> > > > > terms of its support of business
services, which is its
> > > environment."
> > > > >
> > > > > What is which environment?
> > > > > Business services are the
environment of the SOA Ecosystem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also:
> > > > > " Business services
provide business functionality in
> pursuit of
> > > > > business outcome; while SOA
services provide IT artifacts that
> > > > > facilitate connectivity of
functional units to realize and
> support
> > > the
> > > > > business services."
> > > > >
> > > > > SOA services is a complete
misnomer. Infrastructure I can
> buy, but
> > > SOA
> > > > > services?
> > > > > I disagree with that. The
infrastructure provides nothing
> except
> > an
> > > > > operating context. Only when
SOA Service (which in my
> > understanding
> > > is
> > > > > a composite application with
contractual obligations)
> provide any
> > > > value
> > > > > to the customer.
> > > > >
> > > > > And finally:
> > > > > " Business needs drive
the development of services delivered
> > through
> > > > IT,
> > > > > which provides the capability
that satisfies those needs.
> This is
> > > the
> > > > > business value of SOA."
> > > > >
> > > > > This has several problems:
> > > > > 1. Business is concerned only
with business services and drives
> > > their
> > > > > design, not development 2.
What is the business value? What
> does
> > > this
> > > > > points to?
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding of the term
development is that it includes
> > design,
> > > > but
> > > > > if you want to change it...The
value of IT is the same as any
> > other
> > > > > tool, to multiple the value of
the process.
> > > > > Adam Smith pointed this out in
Chapter 1 of Book 1 of the
> Wealth
> > of
> > > > > Nations. This is a point lost
on IT as this comment
> demonstrates.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we are digressing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope not.
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
[mailto:robert.ellinger@ngc.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 24,
2009 9:46 AM
> > > > > To: rexb@starbourne.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
; Lublinsky, Boris
> > > > > Cc: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on
the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi:
> > > > >
> > > > > Please try this edit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 24,
2009 10:34 AM
> > > > > To: Lublinsky, Boris
> > > > > Cc: Ellinger, Robert S (IS);
Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> > > > > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] intro
discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on
the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > >
> > > > > Very minor grammar correction,
Boris,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm just a nit picker.
> > > > >
> > > > > ;)
> > > > > Rex
> > > > >
> > > > > Lublinsky, Boris wrote:
> > > > > > I haven't seen people
discussing my grammar so much
> lately. I am
> > > > doing
> > > > >
> > > > > > something wrong sorry.
> > > > > > I am fine with managing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original
Message-----
> > > > > > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September
24, 2009 9:07 AM
> > > > > > To: Ellinger, Robert S
(IS)
> > > > > > Cc: Lublinsky, Boris;
Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
; > > >
> > > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra]
intro discussion for Wednesday [was:
> > > > > > [soa-rm-ra] positioning
SOA on the cusp between IT and
> business]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm being technically
challenged at the moment with remote
> > > > > participation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in overlapping meetings
the latter of which isn't starting
> > > > and > > the former of which
appears to have ended early while I
> > > > dropped > > off to attend the
latter.Sheseh!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's how I would
correct Boris's grammar with one
> > > > word-substitution:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > don't want the concept of
"orchestration" being confused with
> > the
> > > > use
> > > > > of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "orchestrating"
so I am changing that to "managing" which we
> > don't
> > > > > spend
> > > > > >
> > > > > > much attention on in the
RAF yet .(I just want to avoid
> anyone
> > > > asking
> > > > > if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we mean that "all
business services must be delivered via
> > > > > > orchestration."):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Business drives the
definition of business services aligned
> > > > > with > enterprise business
functionality and business
> > > processes, > > > managing
execution of these services, while IT
> > > defines > > > infrastructure
services,
> > > > >
> > > > > > providing support across
a wide range of business services
> > > > and > > implements both types
of services. Such collaboration >
> > > allows > > stronger communications
between both, by creating >
> > > one-to-one > > mapping between
business and IT artifacts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regardless, since it is
clear that Bob did not actually
> > > pick > up > > Boris's additions
and so didn't drop them, and Ken
> > > had one > more > > addition he
was considering, could we ask Ken
> > > to correct > > Boris's >
grammar, fold in Bob's slight rewording
> > > and add his > > piece? Then, >
perhaps Jeff and/or Jim could make
> > > the crisp > > differentiation >
between business services and SOA
> > > services or > > between business
> services and IT
> > > > >
> > > > > > services
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Rex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Didn't intend to drop
Boris's additions...must of missed >
> > > them. > I >> thought we were to
start from where you left off, so
> > > > that is > >> what I
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Sorry Boris...Perhaps
we were working concurrently and the
> > > material
> > > > > crossed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Bob
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -----Original
Message-----
> > > > > >> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> > > > > >> Sent: Thursday,
September 24, 2009 1:10 AM
> > > > > >> To: Lublinsky, Boris
> > > > > >> Cc: Ellinger, Robert
S (IS); Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> > > > >> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > >> Subject: Re:
[soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday
> [was:
> > > > > >> [soa-rm-ra]
positioning SOA on the cusp between IT and
> > business]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> My task was to get
the work rolling. I have minor
> quibbles with
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > correct
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> English grammar in
Boris's additions, and I agree with
> > > Jeff > > that >> the
distinction between "business service' and
> > > "SOA > > service"
>> needs to be made. In general I think simpler
> > > is > > better, but as >>
long as the grammar is corrected, I'd be
> > > fine > > with Boris's >>
additions. I don't have any problems
> > > with Bob's > > minor rewording,
>> but i don't see why he dropped
> > > Boris's > > additions..
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'll look at it again
in the morning.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > >> Rex
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Lublinsky, Boris
wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> You through away
all changes that were suggested after this
> > > > initial
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> one?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> -----Original
Message-----
> > > > > >>> From: Ellinger,
Robert S (IS)
> [mailto:robert.ellinger@ngc.com]
> > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday,
September 23, 2009 6:41 PM
> > > > > >>> To: rexb@starbourne.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
> > > > > >>> Cc: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > >>> Subject: RE:
[soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday
> [was:
> > > > > >>> [soa-rm-ra]
positioning SOA on the cusp between IT and
> > business]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'd recommend
some minor rewording... -----Original
> > Message-----
> > > > > >>> From: Rex Brooks
[mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday,
September 23, 2009 1:16 PM
> > > > > >>> To: rexb@starbourne.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/rexb@starbourne.com>
> > > > > >>> Cc: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
;
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > >>> Subject: Re:
[soa-rm-ra] intro discussion for Wednesday
> [was:
> > > > > >>> [soa-rm-ra]
positioning SOA on the cusp between IT and
> > business]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> First pass at the
Section 1.2 as an additional paragraph
> > > > > after >>> the first
paragraph. I include the first paragraph
> > > and > > the >>> start of
the current second paragraph here for
> > > the > > context:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 1.2 Service
Oriented Archtecture - An Ecosystem Perspective
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Many systems
cannot be understood by a simple decomposition
> > into
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > parts
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> and subsystems --
in particular when there are many >>> >
> > > > interactions between the parts. For
example, a biological >>> >
> > > > ecosystem is a self-sustaining
association of plants, animals,
> > > > > >>> and the hysical
environment in which they live.
> > > Undestanding > > an >>>
ecosystem often requires a holistic
> > > perspective rather > > than one
>>> focusing on the
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> system's individual
parts.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> The SOA Ecosystem
described in this document occupies the
> > > > >>> > boundary between
Business and IT. It is neither wholly IT
> > > > nor >>> > wholly
Business,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> but is of both
worlds. Neither Business nor IT
> completely own,
> > > > > govern
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> and manage this
SOA Ecosystem. Both sets of concerns must
> > > > be > >>> accommodated
for the SOA Ecosystem to fulfill its >
> > > purposes. > >>> Business
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> needs drive the
development of services delivered through
> > > > IT, > >>> providing the
capability that satisfies those needs.
> > > > This is > >>> the
business value of SOA.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> From a holistic
perspective, a SOA-based system is a >
> > > network > of >>> independent
services, machines, the people who >
> > > operate, > affect, >>> use
and govern those services as well as >
> > > ...
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>> Rex
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Rex Brooks wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Ken,
Everyone,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I believe
that the email you are looking for is your
> reply to
> > > > > Frank:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm-ra/email/archives
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> /
> > > > > >>>>
200906/msg00012.html
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> This is what
Frank Wrote Jun 14, 2009, at 7:12 PM:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> "I
sympathize with the sentiment behind this. We have
> > > >>>> > > consistently
identified SOA as being at the boundary
> > > between > >>>> >
business and IT. It
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> is
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> neither
wholly IT nor wholly business but is of both
> worlds.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> That
represents potentially one of SOA's greatest
> > > opportunities;
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> the source of
its weaknesses: neither business nor IT can
> > > > > completely
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> own/grok SOA.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Frank"
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The email
referenced above contains the most or all of the
> > > thread
> > > > > "Are
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> we being
ignored?"
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'm not sure
we would help ourselves if we say more than
> > > > > "The >>>> SOA
Ecosystem described in this document occupies
> > > the > > boundary >>>>
between Business and IT. It is neither
> > > wholly IT > > nor wholly
>>>> Business, but is
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> of both
worlds. Neither Business nor IT completely own,
> > > > > govern >>>> and
manage this SOA Ecosystem. Both sets of
> > > concerns > > MUST be
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > accommodated
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> for the SOA
Ecosystem to fulfill its purposes."
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>>> Rex
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Laskey, Ken
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> This is a
reminder that this week we are scheduled to
> > discuss
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> the text
on the overlap of SOA and business. Below is
> text
> > > > > suggested
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> by
Michael Poulin and there is another email from
> Boris with
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> idea that
would need to be condensed and
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
added/substituted/combined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Let's get
the discussion far enough along that we can
> bring
> > > this
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> (close
to) closure by the end of Wednesday's call.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I
remember there was an email where Frank wrote something
> > very
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > crisp
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> on this
subject that I replied was exactly what we
> needed to
> > > > say.
> > > > > >>>>> Unfortunately,
I have no idea when that email thread
> > occurred.
> > > > If
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> someone
could find it, I think it would be a good
> > contribution
> > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>
discussion.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Back to
Mike's suggested text, two immediate things
> come to
> > > > mind.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 1.
Section 1.4 is a discussion of the views and this
> is not
> > a
> > > > view
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> be added
as 1.4.4. I think it fits after section 1.2,
> > possibly
> > > > as
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> another
short section.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 2. It is
not obvious to me what the phrase "the >
> > > similarity > of >>>>>
the principles of the Value Networks >
> > > business model" > means.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Ken
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>> ------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Dr.
Kenneth Laskey
> > > > > >>>>> MITRE
Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> > > > > >>>>> 7515
Colshire Drive fax:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
703-983-1379
> > > > > >>>>> McLean VA
22102-7508
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>> From: mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] Sent: >
> > > >>>>> > Thursday, September
10, 2009 11:31 AM
> > > > > >>>>> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > > > >>>>> Subject:
[soa-rm-ra] positioning SOA on the cusp
> between IT
> > > and
> > > > > business
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Folks,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I join
Francis and Boris in suggestion that SOA RA's
> > > > Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> would
benefit from adding a couple of paragraphs on the
> > > > > >>>>> business
aspects of SOA positioned across Business and
> > > IT.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> In the
previous message I composed a few words for a
> small
> > > > section
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> this
topic and propose to discuss them as an initial
> draft
> > > > during
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> next (or
following) Telecom. Proposed text may be
> found in
> > the
> > > > > middle
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> of this
message chain.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Any
suggestions?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> - Michael
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Subject:
RE: todos for PR2
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> From: mpoulin@usa.com <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/mpoulin@usa.com>
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date:
> > > 8
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > Sep
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> 2009
16:21:26 -0000
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
"positioning SOA on the cusp between IT and business" is
> > what
> > > I
> > > > > write
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> a lot for
last few months. So, let me propose a
> strawman for
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>> text:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> 1.4.4
Business Value of the Service Oriented Architecture
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> A Service
Oriented Architecture realizes principles
> of the
> > > > concept
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> service
orientation in the sphere of architecture. The
> > > > > architecture
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> in the
organisation comprises both business
> > > architecture > > and
>>>>> technical architecture of the systems
> > > [ref. to TOGAF > > 9.0].
>>>>> While SOA-based systems address
> > > aspects of the > > technical
>>>>> architecture,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>
similarity of the principles of the Value Networks
> business
> > > > model
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> SOA
allows us to see SOA as a conceptual bridge between
> > > > > >>>>> corporate
Business and IT.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Noticed
similarity opens up new possibilities for
> Business
> > and
> > > > IT
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> construct
service-oriented customer-centric convergent
> > > solutions
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> business
problems. Service orientation enables >
> > > operational > >>>>> and
technical flexibility, which contributes
> > > > to business >
>>>>> efficiency the
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> great
deal. The Service Orientation concept has the > >
> > > potential >>>>> not only
to align IT with Business, but also to >
> > > > align the >>>>>
entire
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > company
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> with the
market dynamics.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> If the
ideas in this writing are acceptable, I will
> work on
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>> wording.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> - Michael
Poulin
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> From:
Francis McCabe To:
> "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
RA"
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Date:
Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:24:08 -0700
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 1. As
Boris alluded to, I think that a paragraph or two
> > > > in > >>>>> the
introduction positioning SOA on the cusp between
> > > > IT and > >>>>>
business could be very useful. It is also pretty
> > > > faithful > to
>>>>> the RAF!
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 2. The
concept of interaction in the RM referred > >
> > > *everything* >>>>>
involved in interacting with services. For the
> > > > > RA we have to
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > unpack
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> that
some. This is the foundation for the multi-leveled
> > > concept
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> joint
action. This should go in Section 3.1.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 3. I
think that Danny's security diagram should be >
> > > updated > >>>>> and
incorporated.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 4. The
trust and willingness stuff should go in.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 5. It
would be good if we could go through the text
> bolding
> > > > > defined
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> concepts.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>
-----------
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> [Date
Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date
> Next] --
> > > > [Date
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Index] |
[Thread Index] | [List Home]
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Rex Brooks
> > > > > >>> President, CEO
> > > > > >>> Starbourne
Communications Design
> > > > > >>> GeoAddress:
1361-A Addison
> > > > > >>> Berkeley, CA
94702
> > > > > >>> Tel: 510-898-0670
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>> - To unsubscribe
from this mail list, you must leave the
> > > > > OASIS >>> TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to
> > > all > > your TCs >>> in
OASIS
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> at:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The information
contained in this communication may be
> > > > CONFIDENTIAL
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> and is intended only
for the use of the recipient(s) named
> > above.
> > > > If
> > > > >
> > > > > >> you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby
> > > notified > > that >> any
dissemination, distribution, or copying
> > > of this >> > >
communication, or any
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > of
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received
> > > > > this >> communication in
error, please notify the sender and
> > > >> > > delete/destroy
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> original message and
any copy of it from your computer
> or paper
> > > > > files.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Rex Brooks
> > > > > >> President, CEO
> > > > > >> Starbourne
Communications Design
> > > > > >> GeoAddress: 1361-A
Addison
> > > > > >> Berkeley, CA 94702
> > > > > >> Tel: 510-898-0670
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >> To unsubscribe from
this mail list, you must leave the
> > > OASIS > > TC >> that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all
> > > your > TCs > in >> OASIS at:
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.ph
> > > > > >> p
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rex Brooks
> > > > > President, CEO
> > > > > Starbourne Communications
Design
> > > > > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> > > > > Berkeley, CA 94702
> > > > > Tel: 510-898-0670
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The information contained in
this communication may be
> > CONFIDENTIAL
> > > > and
> > > > > is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named
> above. If
> > you
> > > > > are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any
> > > > > dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this
> communication, or
> > > any
> > > > of
> > > > > its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this
> > > > > communication in error, please
notify the sender and
> > delete/destroy
> > > > the
> > > > > original message and any copy
of it from your computer or paper
> > > files.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mail
list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> > that
> > > > > generates this mail. Follow
this link to all your TCs in
> OASIS at:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > An Excellent Credit Score is
750
> > > > > See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
treport.com/pm/default.aspx?pagetypeid=homepage62&sc=669615&bcd=FOOTER5%
> > > > > 20>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > An Excellent Credit Score is 750
> > > > See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mail list,
you must leave the OASIS
> TC that
> > > > generates this mail. Follow this
link to all your TCs in
> OASIS at:
> > > >
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The information contained in this
communication may be
> CONFIDENTIAL
> > > > and is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above.
> > > > If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby
> notified that
> > > > any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this
> communication,
> > > > or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have
> > > > received this communication in
error, please notify the
> sender and
> > > > delete/destroy the original message
and any copy of it from your
> > > > computer or paper files.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mail list,
you must leave the OASIS
> TC that
> > > > generates this mail. Follow this
link to all your TCs in
> OASIS at:
> > > >
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > An Excellent Credit Score is 750
> > > > See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
> > > >
> > >
> > <http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;216722518;39159097;q?http://www.freecredi
> > > >
> > >
> >
treport.com/pm/default.aspx?pagetypeid=homepage62&sc=669615&bcd=FOOTER5%
> > > > 20>
> > > > << bus and tech 2.doc
>>
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > An Excellent Credit Score is 750
> > > See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you
must leave the OASIS TC
> that
> > > generates this mail. Follow this
link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > >
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > An Excellent Credit Score is 750
> > See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
> >
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this
communication may be
> CONFIDENTIAL and
> > is intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you
> > are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any
> > dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication, or
> any of
> > its contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this
> > communication in error, please notify the
sender and
> delete/destroy the
> > original message and any copy of it from your
computer or paper
> files.
>
> >
>
>
> --
> An Excellent Credit Score is 750
> See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all
your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
> --
> Come to Adobe MAX 2009 and sign up for the LiveCycle Bundle -
> http://max.adobe.com/sessions/livecycle/?sdid=EUQZE
> Twitter: duancechaos
>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy
of it from your computer or paper files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
An Excellent Credit Score is 750
See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! <http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;216722518;39159097;q?http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?pagetypeid=homepage62&sc=669615&bcd=FOOTER5
>
------ End of Forwarded Message