Re: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA-RM concepts (SOA-RM concepts (KJL)_05-04.ppt) uploaded

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Thomas,

This is not as formally written as the other position papers but I  
don't know whether calling something a position paper is more than a  
convenient designation for a document that capture ideas.  Consider it  
a response to the initial request.  (What would that mean in terms of a  
service?)

The ideas included in this submission consist of some of the components  
in an SOA, their relationships, and numerous questions (on slide 2)  
about capabilities that will be needed for a functioning SOA.  Which of  
these should be included in our RM is the pertinent question.  I  
believe some of the items on slide 1 are too fine a grain to be  
included in a final set of mandated components (e.g. I think there are  
numerous responsible parties but I would not mandate any particular  
ones in a RM).  However, I think we should not avoid detail in the  
early stages because the users of the RM will have to deal with that  
detail and we should make sure our output provides the necessary  
support before we assume the details are just someone else's problem.   
An understanding of some of the details should give us more confidence  
in our abstractions.

As I noted, slide 2 contains a number of questions for the group's  
consideration.  Depending on what an SOA is meant to accomplish, a bare  
bones description that looks like the typical service requester,  
service provider, and service registry triangle could be sufficient but  
it says very little of use for what it really means to have a  
functioning SOA.  (Again, I use this as an example without advocating  
the use of such a representation or any of these specific terms.)  The  
questions point to some elements "missing" from the other position  
papers.  To what extent are these elements and others like them needed?  
  If the answer is these are not needed, we need to document the  
rationale for the benefit of our future audience.

Ken

On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Thomas Erl wrote:

> Ken,
>
> Thank you for this submission. Do you consider this another position  
> paper? If so, could you list which of the elements or artifacts  
> identified in your diagram you would consider core elements relevant  
> to our abstract reference model?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <klaskey@mitre.org>
> To: <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:57 AM
> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA-RM concepts (SOA-RM concepts  
> (KJL)_05-04.ppt) uploaded
>
>
>> SOA-RM concepts (2)
>>
>> -- Dr Ken Laskey
>>
>> The document revision named SOA-RM concepts (SOA-RM concepts
>> (KJL)_05-04.ppt) has been submitted by Dr Ken Laskey to the OASIS SOA
>> Reference Model TC document repository.  This document is revision #1  
>> of
>> SOA-RM concepts (KJL)_05-04.ppt.
>>
>> Document Description:
>> Thoughts on and diagram of concepts submitted by Ken Laskey.   
>> Additional
>> thoughts and questions added on second slide.
>>
>> View Document Details:
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.php? 
>> document_id=12162
>>
>> Download Document:
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.php/ 
>> 12162/SOA-RM%20concepts%20%28KJL%29_05-04.ppt
>>
>> Revision:
>> This document is revision #1 of SOA-RM concepts (KJL)_05-04.ppt.  The
>> document details page referenced above will show the complete revision
>> history.
>>
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email  
>> application
>> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy  
>> and paste
>> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>>
>> -OASIS Open Administration
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508