[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Reference Model vs. Reference Architecture (Road Map)
In my way of thinking, a reference model is actually a form
of
architecture, although I have been straying away from portraying it
in
that light in order to help others understand the distinction.
What
form of architecture? I call it an "architectural
framework".
(for the sarcastic, you'll note that I am using two of the
most overused
words in our field here, but I feel they work.)
In my
world, and architecture must be implementable and should not
contain too many
undefined/undesigned component areas where
engineers/developers can make
grievous mistakes. On the other hand, an
architectural framework is
somewhat like a UML pallette you would find
in Visio -- all of the concepts
are represented on the pallette, and a
trained practitioner knows how to
arrange the concepts on her canvas to
draw the picture. This reference
model that we are writing is
effectively the training material used to train
practitioners.
Is that clear, or have I added
confusion?
-Matt
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
<Quote>
> I would also pick Matt's brain on this subject. He
is far more
> knowledgeable since he lives in this world every
day.
> </Quote>
> Thanks Duane - that all makes sense. Matt, I
for one would be
> interested in hearing anything you'd like to add
please.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Joseph
Chiusano
>
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> <https://webmail.bah.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.boozallen.com/>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
*From:* Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> *Sent:*
Tue 5/10/2005 8:35 PM
> *Cc:* soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>
*Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Reference Model vs. Reference Architecture
> (Road
Map)
>
> Joseph:
>
> I am going to take a try at this.
Please forgive this next sentence:
>
> "A reference model is a model
while a reference architecture is an
> architecture. "
>
>
Okay - so what does that really mean (other that I couldn't find
>
appropriate words)? Not an easy question to answer.
>
> There
are multiple differences you can state such as "One is
> implement-able,
the other is not". A reference architecture does tend
> to be more
generic than most use cases would require and would still
> need to be
specialized further for a particular set of requirements.
>
>
Reference architecture is sort of a proof of concept. Individual
>
requirements and implementations may vary, but with the
> data and
guidelines from such reference implementations the system
> designer can
make more informed decisions. A reference architecture
> also may
force you to consider things the RM does not delve into. The
> RM
for building a house may have a notion of a bathroom and also a
>
kitchen. The reference model states you have to have one instance
of
> each to fulfill the functional requirements of providing a habitat
for a
> human being, but does not show a level of detail of how you could
build
> a house having both.
>
> The reference architecture
for a house would delve into how plumbing
> gets from the source/target to
both the bathroom and the kitchen, as
> well as a documented layout that
shows how they are connected and what
> other common touchpoints and
infrastructure they share. It is a more
> specific design that can
also be further specialized. It forces someone
> architecting
another house to consider the same question and perhaps
> even shows them
a solution paradigm (example - hide the pipes in the
> wall). This
also hints at ways of implementing things that are
> optimized (hiding
pipes in the wall is better than running them outside
> the house in
climates where they may freeze).
>
> The Reference Architecture for
this alleged house can also be modified
> for someone who owns property
that is on a 10 degree slope or is not
> connected to a city water and
sewage system (let's not get into those
> details). It may also
further optimize the house's orientation to
> optimize it for natural
sunlight and views via windows.
>
> The order of abstraction is as
follows:
>
> 1. Meta models and meta conventions(ADL's and notions
such as patterns
> of pipes and filters, stacks, etc.)
> 2.
Reference Models
> 3. Reference Architectures
> 4. Specific
Architectures.
>
> There is of course, not 100% consensus on this
subject and even
> something as simple as a definition of architecture
itself has proven to
> be very difficult.
>
> I would also
pick Matt's brain on this subject. He is far more
> knowledgeable
since he lives in this world every day.
>
> Duane
>
Duane
>
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> > I
think it is very important that at some point we include in our spec
>
> the necessary guidance for users of our spec to move from our
> >
reference model to a reference architecture, and perhaps beyond.
>
>
> > I have seen so many cases in which the terms "reference model"
and
> > "reference architecture" have been used interchangeably (and
sometimes
> > in the same resource!) that I am no longer crystal clear
on the
> > similarities/differences between the 2. I know that there
has been
> > preliminary discussion that reference model != reference
architecture.
> >
> > Can someone please provide a clear
distinction between the 2, and how
> > we envision our RM "flowing"
into an RA?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
>
>
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> >
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
<http://www.boozallen.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ***********
> Senior Standards
Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
> Chair - OASIS
Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical
> Committee
-
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
>
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>
***********
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]