OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Sub Comittee and/or User guide

In agreement Matt with your two criteria but we need to have a time-boxed
discussion/presentation around each topic to allow the proposal to be better
understood before the vote? We can agree on a content structure for such
presentations and schedule them over the TC calls/meetings -- perhaps the
presentation that will be discussed in the coming meeting is made available
as a pre-read to keep the discussion focused and short?

Will be happy to help any which way I can.

Will you be there in New Orleans? What about you Duane?



-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:28 PM
To: ajay.madhok@amsoft.net
Cc: 'SOA-RM'; 'Duane Nickull'
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Sub Comittee and/or User guide


We're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit...the enthusiasm that is 
being shown here is extremely exciting, but a suggestion I have here to 
help harness all of these great ideas is to start storing sub committee 
proposals in Kavi, which can be voted upon when the RM is complete.  I 
think we will need to put a process together for accepting these 
proposals, specifically commissioning criteria (1. Number of 
participating members, 2. Time availability of chair & editor(s)).

I will work on a proposal template in good time.  I think it is 
important for the TC as a whole to formally vet all output and ongoing 
work in order to keep our direction in line with the TC's collective 


On 18-Apr-05, at 10:34 PM, Ajay Madhok wrote:

> Thanks Duane,
> In agreement with your Solution as the way forward.
> If we (TC) decide to go down the path of specialist sub-committees, I 
> would
> propose the following sub-committee as well:
> Identity Co-ordination in SOA
> This is a critical pre-requisite for SOA but taken for granted but it 
> does
> not happen automatically. Whenever appropriate, I can present my views 
> on
> why I believe the subject is worthy of a separate sub-committee. 
> Perhaps we
> can have a brief discussion at the F2F next week?
> Cheers,
> =Ajay.Madhok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:53 AM
> To: SOA-RM
> Subject: [soa-rm] Sub Comittee and/or User guide
> All:
> I have read through the last batch of email.  There are a couple of
> things I would like to propose for comments. Please read this entire
> email before replying.
> 1. I will concede that many members of the public will likely have the
> same kinds of trouble interpreting a reference model vs. a reference
> architecture vs a specific architecture as seems to be pervasive on 
> this
> list.  If we have the problem in our context, it is likely to be 
> present
> outside of this list.
> 2. We cannot redefine what a "reference model" is or what it includes.
> If we tried to change the industry definition of reference model to one
> that has concrete items in it or things that are not part of SOA (which
> is tricky since it is still undefined), it will not be a true reference
> model and hence not accepted by industry.
> 3. Service provider and service consumer are not part of a reference
> model.  They are roles visible only in a runtime or infrastructure 
> views
> of a specific architecture.  To prove this point, please look once 
> again
> at the OSI reference model.  It is a communications stack RM yet does
> not contain notions of a message sender and message receiver.
> 4. We cannot mix abstract concepts and "things people can chew on"
> (implying concrete items) in our work.  Such does run adverse to
> accepted architectural conventions.
> One way forward is to probably create a sub committee to work on a
> reference architecture for SOA.  A Reference Architecture could be
> developed in parallel to the reference model and is fair game to
> illustrate things like security, consumers, providers, agents etc.  It
> is within our charter to do such.
> After reading through some older emails, I would assert that such a
> thing is probably essential along with some  sort of white paper or 
> user
> guide that explains the relationships between the RM, the RA and other
> architecture.
> Reference Model
> (is a guide for developing a)
> [ Reference Architecture || * Architecture ]
> There are several people on this list who also have stated specific
> needs for what they see in SOA.  Perhaps this may be a good Sub
> Committee (SC) consideration also.
> Government Service Oriented Reference Architecture???
> etc.
> I can already see there are many of you who could lead such an effort 
> as
> a sub committee.
> Comments?
> Duane
> -- 
> ***********
> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - 
> http://www.adobe.com
> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  -
> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
> ***********

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]