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

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.
>> 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]