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: Fwd: changes in section 4

As we agreed in the meeting, I am listing the problems in section 4 that I think we have to fix before releasing the standard. (BTW, this stack of messages contains the extract from the RAF that I initially commented - for references).

1. Orchestration and Choreography may not be confronted because they are two sides of the same composability. Orchestration uses choreography and vise verse. There are several places where this issue comes up and I have written version of changes.

2. Two terms coined by Boomberg and Newcomer several years ago do not make sense any more: "Service-Oriented Business Process" and "Service-Oriented Business Collaboration". Both expressions are tautologies - all Business Collaborations and processes are service-oriented, there are no non-service-oriented collaborations and processes in the business by definition. Many SOA architects say this now (but not 1-2 years ago). The wording has to be changed (e.g. w/o 'Service-Oriented' prefix) to avoid people laughing at us.

3. The diagram illustrating choreography on Figure 46 (as I reported before) violates basic business practice and may not be recommended in the standard. Internal business processes may not be integrated between different organisations, only external ones may be and, in all cases, via appropriate interfaces. This is what I have drawn in the diagram I circulated before. 

4. Since SOA is positioned between business and technology, we have to be very accurate with out 'technical customs'. Particularly, business collaboration may be perfectly done via orchestration, not only via choreography. So, segregating orchestration (for the business process only) and choreography (for the business collaboration only) is incorrect and very dangerous from the methodology perspective.

As I said already, I do not only propose to reconsider the issues but I have written all texts for the reviews.

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: mpoulin@usa.com
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; klaskey@mitre.org; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
Sent: Wed, Nov 10, 2010 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: changes in section 4


I have attached my proposals and comments for the section 4 ( and one - for the section 3) related to choreography-orchestration. It is a large document (13 pages) that includes original text and embedded changes.

Please, consider it as a draft/strawman. 

- Michael Poulin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>; klaskey@mitre.org <klaskey@mitre.org>; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tue, Nov 9, 2010 5:21 pm
Subject: RE: changes in section 4

Go for it
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:55 AM
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; klaskey@mitre.org; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: changes in section 4
what do you think about starting the work on the section 4 tomorrow?
- Michael

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.


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