[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)
Tim, That is absolutely the case. -Matt tmathews@lmi.org wrote: >As long as the entire group can review all the work and submit their >comments or requested changes, I do not see an issue. > >TM > >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] >Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:58 AM >To: Chiusano Joseph >Cc: SOA-RM >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction >text) > >Joe, > >I did not intend to make the implication that you point out, and I take >serious issue with how you twisted my words below. Please don't do that >anymore. > >We all know that editors pull more weight in any specification, like it >or not. That is why so many people signed up. It is the job of the >people who are not editing to review what the editors write, and help >them to refine of redefine what they have done. > >Our editing team is undertaking the task of committing to paper a >serialization of what we have discussed in meetings so far. My only >request, that may seem conspiratorial to you, is to ask that you not >waste our time by commenting on what amounts to an unedited sketch of >our specification. No one has stated that we are closing down >discussion or shunning contributions, nor should they. > >-Matt > > >Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > > >><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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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]