[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA-RM Outline and Glossary
Let's first figure out what useful we have to say and then we can figure out how best to present it. :-) Ken On Apr 12, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote: > I'm not opposed to providing the information, just where it is > provided :-) > > -matt > > Francis McCabe wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]