Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text)

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

+1

There is *so much* discussion that we feel we need to put our heads down 
and get something written that can encapsulate the essence of what we 
are doing, and focus discussion.  If that is a "closed" approach, so be 
it (although its not).  At least we will end up with something for the 
money our employers are spending on this work.


Peter F Brown wrote:

>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
>		
>		
>		
>
>
>
>
>  
>