Re: [soa-rm] SOA-RM Outline and Glossary

[Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Everyone who reads the RM will be coming from their particular PoV. 
Security is up there in the first 3 considerations people have about 
distributed systems. If we do not address it directly we will be 
criticized.

The point of the stakeholder's sections is to act as a set of primers 
to the RM itself; to embed it in the wider context. That could be done 
in separate documents; but why make someone read 4 documents (with 4 
sets of introductions, etc. etc.) when a pertinent section in one will 
do the job.

The other major driver behind that section is to help people understand 
how to extend the RM to fit their particular needs. Security happens to 
be a good example in that case; but its not the only possible one -- 
manageability comes to mind, deployment, realization in Java, ...

Frank


On Apr 12, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> I don't think we should include "why we didn't" sections in the 
> normative part of the specifciation, or even applied RM sections 
> (WS-*).  These should be in separate documents, IMO.
>
> -Matt
> Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> Potential stakeholder's perspectives
>>
>> This is where we directly address our audiences:
>>
>> 1. SOA for busy executives
>>     i.e., what are the benefits of SOA, what architectural 
>> constraints are *of the essence* and how to use the RM.
>> 2. SOA and security
>>     i.e., explaining why security per se is not a direct part of the 
>> RM, but how different security considerations may be layered on top 
>> and how that fits with the overall structure.
>>     This one is also good for another reason: anyone wishing to 
>> ensure some -ility on their particular architecture will want to know 
>> how to map their requirements on to what is offered.
>> 3. SOA for developers
>>     I.e., what are the primary constraints implied by the 
>> architecture -- as well as those that are *not* implied. How is 
>> scalability achieved in the RM and what you need to look out for in 
>> order to achieve scalability in your architecture. More generally, 
>> how should you ensure that your architecture is a good example of an 
>> SOA. How to fold legacy stove-pipes into you new SOA systems.
>> 4. SOA for Web services
>>    I.e., how does the RM differ from Web services, how do the WS-* 
>> specs fit into the RM framework.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>>
>>> Frank,
>>>
>>> For those members not familiar with the W3C Web Services 
>>> Architecture document, could you share your thoughts as to what 
>>> would go in a potential "Stakehohlder's Perspectives" section for 
>>> the SOA-RM?
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis McCabe" 
>>> <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
>>> To: "Thomas Erl" <terl@serviceorientation.org>
>>> Cc: <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 9:11 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA-RM Outline and Glossary
>>>
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2005, at 11:30 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> During our last conference call Frank McCabe suggested that we 
>>>>> consider
>>>>> using the W3C Web Services Architecture 
>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/)
>>>>> document's outline as the basis for our reference model outline. 
>>>>> The parent
>>>>> level sections of this outline are as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 Introduction
>>>>> 2 Concepts and Relationships
>>>>> 3 Stakeholder's Perspectives
>>>>> 4 Conclusions
>>>>>
>>>>> The W3C supplements this document with a separate glossary. As per 
>>>>> Ken's
>>>>> suggestion, we may want to consider adding a glossary as a fifth 
>>>>> section or as an appendix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>