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] Review of 21 Dec 2010 Editors' Draft of SOA-RAF

I am very much with Boris on "What happen to the SOA definition..."

However, regarding "Semantic engagement piece ...", I think it is more than message exchange; it is also about Service Description and service discovery/selection - potential consumer much be sure it understands what service provider says about the services (before service is involved into message exchange)

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
To: peter@peterfbrown.com <peter@peterfbrown.com>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 4:00 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Review of 21 Dec 2010 Editors' Draft of SOA-RAF

Random comments
What happen to the SOA definition, that Ken, Michael and myself were working on? It disappeared
We still keep mixing resources and services, although they are DIFFERENT SOA != ROA 3.5.1 will upset both RESTofanians and SOA proponents.
Owning and managing SOA - is it really a process viewpoint
Separation of concerns is a well established principle in software architecture, while distinction of concerns is a new one
When talking about service consumers and providers (860) it sounds like a service is created to satisfy needs of a specific consumer, which does mot sound right.
Semantic engagement piece does not seem right. Semantic is on the messaging level, so your example is not right
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:28 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Review of 21 Dec 2010 Editors' Draft of SOA-RAF
The last meeting of the TC started the discussion on the new editors’ draft of the RAF. The draft minutes of the meeting, posted yesterday, show the issues that were covered.
Although no formal decision has yet been made to adopt the latest draft as the “reference text”, we are currently working on the assumption that *at least* the editorial, style and typo changes have been accepted. For reference, a pdf of the text with *only* these ancillary changes tracked and marked (compared with the 17 Nov text) has been loaded to our TC workspace [1]. As a matter of due diligence, we invite any TC member to comment before the next meeting on these ancillary changes or forever hold their peace. Please include the mention “ancillary changes comment” in the subject line of any post to the list.
Chris and I are also now collecting comments and feedback on the “Main Changes” draft (the draft posted that assumes the ancillary changes as accepted [2]). We have already noted all the remarks made at the 22nd Dec meeting and some sent privately by the chair. We are now explicitly looking for further, new, feedback and comments from the whole TC. Please include the mention “ain changes comment” in your post.
In either case, please refer to the line numbers of the respective pdf documents.
Best regards,
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
Until 9 Jan 2011, Tel : +32.472.027.811

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]