RE: [soa-rm] on UML, target audience, document structure ...

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

<Quote>
Enough on general philosophy, as a concrete contribution, I suggest
looking at the OWL-S work
(http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/). 
</Quote>

Sorry, I'm missing the connection here between OWL-S and the remainder
of your message below (caveat: the poster here knows OWL-S in-depth, so
he is not asking "what is OWL-S?"). Could you perhaps clarify how this
would be valuable as a contribution?

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] 
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:00 PM
> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [soa-rm] on UML, target audience, document structure ...
> 
> I'm currently trying to catch up on email and realize I 
> haven't gotten SOA-RM email for a couple days, so please 
> excuse if this is covering old territory.  (Also, if this 
> gets a bit long in the tooth, please just skip to the bottom 
> and see another reference I suggest we look
> at.)
> 
> There have been many thoughtful posts on these subjects.  I 
> agree with Rex Brooks that we need to go about this 
> systematically because in my experience if we don't, we will 
> redo much and revisit issues which should be long since 
> buried.  Rebekah Metz brought up the numerous potential 
> audiences and while we can't be everything to everyone, if we 
> can't clearly describe our results to anyone but the experts, 
> then we miss our opportunity to have a real impact.  This 
> said, I agree with Greg Kohring that we need clear 
> unambiguous (possibly multiple) presentations, and the 
> presentation will need to be clear and appropriate for each 
> audience we choose to address.
> 
> So I suggest the following:
> 1. Let's begin by figuring out what we have to say.  This 
> should start with collecting (and challenging) our 
> assumptions about what an SOA is, what it does (or helps us 
> do), and why we care.  Don't worry at first how to capture it 
> formally - let the initial capture be the challenge for our 
> editing crew.
> 
> 2. As we begin to understand the domain, let's consider how 
> it naturally partitions itself.  Part of that will be 
> technical, part will be the audiences for which we'll need to 
> emphasize (or expand upon) which aspects.
> 
> 3. Then let's figure out the best way to present and refine our ideas.
> 
> For those that cringe that we'll wander forever, that will 
> only happen if we always express new ideas without giving any 
> context for what has already been said.  So when you bring 
> something into the conversation, say what it connects to, 
> what it adds to, or what it is juxtaposed against as a 
> different way to view the problem.
> 
> Do I guarantee this will converge?  Well, let's say I'm 
> cautiously optimistic.  What I do know is that a false sense 
> of structure does not make hard points any easier and can 
> deter making real progress.
> 
> Enough on general philosophy, as a concrete contribution, I 
> suggest looking at the OWL-S work 
> (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/).  I 
> am not endorsing their solution but they have thought a lot 
> about the problems and needs for describing services and 
> making services work.  Their figures use a concept map 
> (directed line graph) approach, so also look at this as an 
> example of presentation and see how you like (or dislike) it. 
>  I haven't yet read the companion document is OWL-S' 
> Relationship to Selected Other Technologies 
> (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-related-20041122/).
> 
> Enough already :-)
> 
> Ken
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
> 
>