[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text)
Joe: I think there is a misunderstanding here. As one of the co-editors, I have taken my role as meaning to follow the entirety of the list discussions and TC meeting outputs and capture what seems to be the consensus on those parts of the document for which I'm responsible. The TC then decides if that passes muster or not. The debate and discussion continues unhindered (some have said that it's even too much to absorb) but the role of the editors is not to intermediate or limit input, but to encapsulate what's agreed. For me, anything submitted is valid input, but it only goes in the draft texts if there is support from the TC. This would seem to be entirely consistent with the normal TC process. Peter ________________________________ From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: 09 May 2005 13:07 To: Matthew MacKenzie Cc: SOA-RM Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text) <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 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> ________________________________ From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matthew.mackenzie@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 4:10 PM To: Chiusano Joseph Cc: SOA-RM Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text) 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 ________________________________ From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Sent: Sun 5/8/2005 2:11 PM To: Smith, Martin Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text) 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]