[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 arrive tomorrow eve. Probably best to look for me in the bar near Matt drinking some good single cask scotch ;-) Duane 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 >>*********** >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- *********** 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]