OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[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]