[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 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]