RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOAmeeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Folks,

For my $.02 FWIW SOA is a subgroup of Enterprise Architecture and I 
don't see it being a sibling of any other major classification of IT 
Architectures, but it is certainly the parent for the far-reaching 
subclasses of SOA components, subsystems which can be called services 
and in which those services are intentionally, or retroactively, 
purposed or repurposed as reusable. Reusability, in this context 
needs some work because it is a particular kind of systematic 
reusability. One, but not the only, kind of reuse is the example I 
offer where the same service that accesses an employee performance 
evaluation report for a line manager who wants to examine ways in 
which that line's production output can be improved can also be used 
by upper management for reviewing HR policies, for instance. The 
accessing service in this case is the SOA component.

The difference between Enterprise Architecture and SOA lies mostly in 
the fact that EA is specific to an enterprise, while SOA can be 
abstracted out of a given Enterprise, and collected along with other 
SOA components so abstracted to form a registry of available services 
across, for example, the Federal Government. Likewise, I'm sure some 
enterprising sort will see the obvious opportunity for providing such 
a registry of SOA components for a small fee, or not so small 
depending...

Ciao,
Rex

At 2:10 PM -0500 3/28/05, Smith, Martin wrote:
>Ken - -
>
>A great point (and I am guilty of the comment you addressed.)  We're
>getting down in the weeds before we get oriented to the stars.
>
>How about starting with some OO-ish questions like these:
>
>1.  What is "SOA" a subclass of?  (Or, in English:  what type of thing
>is an "SOA").  Obviously, it's an "architecture", but what's it an
>architecture of?
>
>2.  To further clarify 1., let's ask:  "What is SOA a sibling of"?
>Assuming we agree that SOA is an architecture for X, what other
>alternative architectures do we know about for X? If we can name one or
>two, then we can use these to compare and contrast SOA.
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
>Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:10 PM
>To: Smith, Martin; Duane Nickull
>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA
>meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded
>
>Just catching up on email and hopefully this has not already been
>addressed.
>
>I think that before we "define the relevant objects and their
>interactions
>or possible states" we need to define what the system does that we
>consider
>of sufficient value that we are going through the effort of building the
>
>rm.  Otherwise, we are merely documenting objects that others have
>defined
>or will define possibly conflicting objects without a common idea of why
>we
>care about an SOA at all.  Given the press is full of such descriptions,
>
>our job would already be done. :-)
>
>Ken
>
>At 05:59 PM 3/22/2005, Smith, Martin wrote:
>>Just to check my understanding, is this the same as:
>>
>>"Goal of the TC is to define the relevant objects and their
>interactions
>>or possible states  (i.e., an ontology) necessary and sufficient for
>>modeling a "services oriented" environment for (designing, building and
>
>>operating) distributed computer applications?
>>
>>(A "services oriented" distributed AD environment would be
>distinguished
>>by a set of principles or patterns defining this style.)
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>  >>Might it not be good to start by listing the capabilities an SOA
>>  >>enables?  For example, an SOA enables a set of distributed resources
>>  >>(both data and processing resources) to be assembled to accomplish a
>task
>>  >>defined independently from the SOA or its implementation.
>>.  . .
>>  >>Let the fun begin!
>>  >>
>>  >>Ken
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>At 01:0       1PM3222005,mattm@adobe.zl6wrote
>
>--
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>    /   Ken
>Laskey                                                                \
>   |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-883-7934   |
>   |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:      703-883-1379   |
>    \   McLean VA 22102-7508
>/
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309