[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Sub Comittee and/or User guide
I'm here right now, 6 rows back on the left typing on a powerbook :-) On 25-Apr-05, at 2:27 PM, Ajay Madhok wrote: > 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? > > Cheers, > > =Ajay.Madhok > > > > -----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 > > Ajay. > > 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 > vision. > > Thanks, > > Matt > 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. >> >> SOLUTION: >> >> 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]