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] Proposed edits to SOA-RAF Committee Specification Public review Draft

A few comments on the draft distributed by Peter:
- In the abstract, can we just say we're using IEEE 1471-2000 and leave the details of 42010 for section 1.3.1? That would be cleaner.
- In the abstract, there is a strike-thru the added ANSI.  Is this supposed to be deleted. In any case, it should be consistent with section 1.3.1.
- In section 1.3.1, I suggest the following be used as the first paragraph:

The SOA-RAF structures its analysis based on the concepts defined in ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000, “Systems and Software Engineering – Architecture description” [ANSI/IEEE 1471]. ANSI/IEEE 1471 was eventually approved as ISO/IEC 42010-2007 and subsequently superseded by ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 [ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010].  Although the more recent standard modifies some of the original definitions and introduces new material, the modifications and additions were not found to significantly impact the SOA-RAF analysis.  As such, the SOA-RAF follows the definitions and structure of the original standard.

An architectural description conforming to ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000 and ISO/IEC 42010-2007 must include the following six (6) elements:

- In section 2.2, we note the dual designation of ANSI/IEEE 1471 and ISO/IEC 42010, but [ISO-IEC 42010] was deleted from references. Should the dual designation be noted in the references?
- The remnant remaining in line 1945 seems awkward.  Would we lose anything by deleting completely?
- For line 1949, did we close on the question of whether the mediator led to simpler or a more complex infrastructure?  Consider instead, "Mediated awareness provides consumers and providers with a straightforward approach to mutual visibility."
- In a later email I suggested (but not strongly) that we keep lines 1974-1977 as a way for the reader to connect with a familiar and concrete example.
- In Acknowledgements, Kevin Smith should affiliate with his company and Michael Poulin is no longer with Fidelity.


On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Peter F Brown wrote:

As agreed at this week’s RAF meeting, attached is an updated document, containing the proposed edits to the last Public Review Draft.
The next full TC meeting will have to decide:
- whether the edits are to be considered as “non-material changes” in which case no further public review is required and the TC can proceed to call for a full committee ballot to approve the latest document as a Committee Specification (this is now allowed following a recent change to the OASIS TC process);
- whether the changes are “material”, in which case and if these edits are accepted, the TC will need to proceed with a further public review before it can finalize the work.
Please send any comments on this new draft to the full TC RM list (no new issues).
Along with the updated document, I also attach a copy of the Issues List, updated in light of the decisions of the RAF sub-committee meeting this week. The TC will have to formally accept these dispositions, whichever path it decides to follow.
Ken will send out further information in the coming days regarding a date for the full TC meeting (we discussed a provisional date of 21 November).
Best regards,
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
Member of:
Follow me:
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soa-rm-ra-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: soa-rm-ra-help@lists.oasis-open.org

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