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)


Title: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text)
Matt,
 
I apologize if my message did not come out as intended - I didn't mean to skew your message at all. Just want to make sure that all individuals and organizations involved in the creation of this specification get their fair shot at contributing to it, at the appropriate level. I'm understanding a better message now.
 
Joe


From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: Mon 5/9/2005 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]