<Quote>
I sent a cautionary note to you about comments
against a draft that, well, may not be the same draft after the 8+ writing
volunteers come up with their contributions. If you wanted a more active
role in this work, you could have got involved on a deeper level, as several
people have.
</Quote>
Matt,
That's not the point
here - and implying (as I believe that you did above) that "if you really want
to contribute to this specification, be an editor - if you aren't, then you'll
just have to take what we come up with" does not help in any way (in fact, it
makes it worse). I am simply saying that I have never experienced a TC in which
members were asked to stop contributing while a draft was being created - we
have always continued contributions, so as not to discourage input from members.
I am only wondering why we have adopted this operating policy, as I don't
believe it is healthy.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Joseph,
There is nothing prohibiting discussions or contributions, and there is
transparency with regard to what the editors are doing. Everything is
kept up to date in Kavi in the editors sc document area.
I sent a cautionary note to you about comments against a draft that,
well, may not be the same draft after the 8+ writing volunteers come up with
their contributions. If you wanted a more active role in this work, you
could have got involved on a deeper level, as several people have.
This TC *is* special, because there are so many people who are willing to
do the grunt work to make it happen. I expected SOA-RM to end up being
like most other TCs -- one editor, probably me, trying to read the current
pulse of the discussions and come up with a draft. With so many active
contributors (read: people signing up to do whole chunks of the initial ToC),
we need more structure just so that we can be fair to everyone who has
volunteered to do more than just send and read emails.. I suspect that
the period between May 15 and November ?? will see several evolutions of this
document. You, and everyone else will have ample time to make your
mark. This first draft is a starting point, and I think we have enough
different minds and opinions in the editor ranks to make sure the draft isn't
biased and effected by tunnel vision.
Do we care about SOA? Do we need SOA? Yes and Yes. If
we didn't, why would we even be doing all of this work and spending our travel
budgets on it? Is SOA, in the general sense, not so prevalent even by
our early definitions to warrant further consideration, as we are doing?
I hardly think these kinds of "check valve" questions are reasons to shut down
our authoring work.
-Matt
On 8-May-05, at 3:34 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
I thought this was
supposed to be an open effort, where contributions from members were welcome
and encouraged. I have never been involved in a TC that effectively shut
down its communications for blocks of time as much as a week long, while a
group of individuals worked in private on writing a specification while the
others could only wait and see what they came up with. We are supposed to be
encouraged to make contributions as TC members, at any time - this is what
the spirit of OASIS is about, and has - from my experience - always
been.
If we are ready for an initial draft,
but not read to discuss why we need SOA, then we truly are not ready for an
initial draft.
Joe
Martin,
I think sometimes a discussion ends abruptly
when someone captures enough of the essence and we're not ready to
delve into the specifics. I agree wholeheartedly with
answering the "why do we care?" question and I like many of your
ideas and would quibble with others. Personally, I figured
you'll make sure these ideas are added if they are missing from the
first editors' draft. Right now, I'm looking forward to
seeing that first draft so I can start thinking about what we have
right, wrong, or somewhere in between. To that end, I'd
better finish writing my sections :-)
Ken
On May 8,
2005, at 12:24 AM, Smith, Martin wrote:
> List - - > >
I sent essentially this same message in the thread "[soa-rm] When
Is > An SOA Really An SOA?" a while back, but got no
response. Thought > I'd try again to see if no-one noticed
it or no-one liked it . . . > > I'm proposing we include
something like the following in the > Introduction. As
several people have observed, we all tended to jump > right in
to the details of "what is an SOA" without nailing down the >
answer to the "why should I [the reader] care?" question. As
we > learned in the f2f discussion, many of us on the TC care
because it's > our job to explain to others why we all seem to
think we need this > 'SOA' thing (other than that it keeps being
in the news!) I'm > guessing that if we can understand why
SOA has become a buzzword, > we'll clarify the "essential
definition" question. > > So, here's what I think is driving
SOA: > > "The SOA concept has emerged in response to the need
for an approach > to application architecture that is well
adapted to the Internet > environment. The Internet has
revolutionized personal communications > with e-mail, and
"B-to-C" transactions with the World-Wide Web. > Following
the exploitation path of other technologies, the Internet > may
be expected to have a similar revolutionary effect on "B-to-B" >
transactions - - automating system-to-system exchanges - - and
this > domain may eventually be several times larger in scale
that the > "B-to-C" space. > > The characteristics
of the Internet environment to which the SOA > concept responds
are: > >
1. Multiple management domains.--Business or other
entities > "on the 'Net" each have their own set of policies and
procedures, and > they are legal peers so there is little or no
"top down governance" in > the
environment; > >
2. Heterogeneous technologies, semantics and
processes; > 3.
A very large and dynamic "marketplace" of potential > service
providers and consumers.--Unlike the environment within a >
single organization, there may be many alternative providers of
a > computing service, and available services may change on
a > minute-by-minute
basis; > >
4. Lack of standard context.--Within a single
organization, > there is normally a body of "well-known"
information about what > resources are available, how they may
be obtained, what standards or > conventions they follow,
specific interface details, reliability of > the resource,
payment requirements, if any, etc. In the environment of > a
single computer, the unknowns are even fewer. Because of the
size > and diversity of the Internet, obtaining this information
is a much > larger
problem. > >
5. Lack of infrastructure services.--The Internet
provides > some basic services, but on a "best-efforts" basis.
Thus issues like > quality-of service and security require must
be addressed more > explicitly than in single-computer or
local-network environments. > > Application architectures that
call themselves "SOA" provide a > solution to these issues of
the Internet environment. There is nothing > to prevent
implementing an SOA within a local network, on a single >
computing platform, or even in a non-technical environment like
a > human household, but the need for SOA is driven by the
opportunity for > exploiting the worldwide connectivity provided
by the Internet." > >
Martin > > > > > > > > > >
-----Original Message----- > From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com] > Sent:
Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:05 PM > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] When Is An SOA Really An SOA? > > This
seem to be an issue for defining "Reference Model". Does this >
reference model provide a litmus test for architectures to determine >
whether or not they follow SOA? > > On 5/5/05, Chiusano Joseph
<chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
wrote: >> This question has been on my mind for quite some time,
and I would >> like now >> to put it in the context
of our in-process RM. >> >> In the past, I have pondered
the following more specific question >> (please >>
note that this is all scoped to Web Services-based SOA for ease
of >> explanation): >> >> If I have 2 Web
Services that communicate, do I have an SOA? >> >> We can
say "certainly not!". One can do point-to-point
integration >> with Web >> Services just as easily
(to a certain degree) as without, with >> redundant
Web >> Services rather than shared Web Services (a violation of one
of the >> foundational tenets of SOA, which is shared
services). >> >> Now let's say that we have 2 Web Services
that each conform to the SOA >> Architectural Model in Figure 1 of
our most recent draft. There is a >> data >> model,
a policy, a contract, etc. >> >> Add to that our
definition of SOA on line 470, in which we >> (correctly)
state >> that SOA is a form of Enterprise Architecture, which (at
least in my >> mind) >> implies enterprise-level
benefits. >> >> Q: Given the last scenario above (2 Web
Services that each conform to >> the >> SOA
Architectural Model ) and our definition of SOA: Is this
scenario >> large-scale enough that it *really* meets our
definition? IOW, how >> large-scale does an "instance" that
conforms to our RM have to be to >> yield >>
benefits on an enterprise scale? Do we need to stipulate
something >> regarding >> this for our
RM? >> >>
Joe >> >> >> >> Joseph
Chiusano >> >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> >>
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Ken
Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone:
703-983-7934 7515 Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA
22102-7508
|