[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business
What value does it add to use business as opposed to some more generic term? On 5/11/05, Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote: > Ken: > > I still think this may weight in as too specific and constrictive. The > gist seems to be the "the activities undertaken to accomplish goals", > regardless of the the type of entity owning or operating the IT. > > For sake of clarity, can we not use the term "business"? Or does anyone > believe we absolutely need to use that word. > > Duane > > Ken Laskey wrote: > > > But do we also need to cover > > > > business: the goals expressed by an organization and the activities > > undertaken to accomplish those goals > > > > Ken > > > > At 08:31 AM 5/11/2005, Peter F Brown wrote: > > > >> Duane: > >> > >> I take Martin's point but there is a difference between the > >> "business" as an > >> organisational entity; and "business" as the work/mission that the > >> entity > >> undertakes. I would prefer "enterprise" or "organisation", but could > >> livewith "business" provided there is a clear definition in the > >> glossary as > >> you suggest. > >> > >> If "business" it is to be, then I'd propose for the glossary: > >> > >> "Business: any organisation, enterprise or undertaking, whether > >> for-profit, > >> voluntary or governmental in nature, with a particular mission and > >> structure" > >> > >> Peter > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >> Sent: 11 May 2005 04:24 > >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction > >> text) > >> > >> Martin: > >> > >> Yes - I know in our current context it is implicitly understood > >> however I do > >> want to keep our focus a bit strict about this to ensure that when > >> someone > >> picks up this RM 5 years from now it is still pretty clear. If there > >> is a > >> term that is not necessary to use that may cast ambiguity, we should > >> probably error on the side of safety. > >> > >> If this becomes as popular as the OSI stack, we have to strive to > >> make sure > >> that 10 years from now people don't discard it because it only > >> applies to > >> business. > >> > >> Perhaps we should define it in the glossary if we did keep it in. > >> > >> Duane > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Smith, Martin wrote: > >> > >> >Duane - - I wouldn't lose sleep over the term "business." We (in > >> Government) use it all the time as synonymous with "mission". We > >> talk about > >> "business case", "business value", "business impact", "business > >> owner" and > >> "business process." It often is used to contrast with "non-business" > >> functions or considerations like "support" or "infrastructure" or > >> "administrative" or "compliance". > >> > > >> >Martin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >________________________________ > >> > > >> >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >> >Sent: Tue 5/10/2005 12:05 PM > >> >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >> >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction > >> >text) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >I would object to any statement or notion that made SOA only SOA in the > >> >context of 'business', however I think I understand the intent of the > >> >statement and agree. Business is one type of user. Department of > >> >Homeland Security is not a business yet they ill have SOA (at least > >> >Martin hasn't tried to sell me anything yet ;-) > >> > > >> >Perhaps we could re-state it as an IT need, written in a way that > >> >speaks to business and government users. This is harder than it > >> >appears and I failed at it miserably but would love to hear your > >> guys take. > >> > > >> >Something like (but not) this: > >> > > >> >"SOA is an architectural model developed to enable those who build and > >> >maintain IT systems to repurpose components rapidly for new > >> >functionality. This enables them to respond quickly and in an > >> >economically efficient manner to new requirements" > >> > > >> >Does that make sense? > >> > > >> >Duane > >> > > >> >Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>Sally, > >> >> > >> >>I like your comment regarding SOA being a response for business, and I > >> >>believe it is completely true. A general question for us: Since we are > >> >>approaching SOA from the technical perspective (at least that is my > >> >>understanding), wouldn't it be out of our scope to refer to the > >> >>business aspects of SOA (i.e. that SOA encapsulates business services > >> >>in....etc. etc.)? > >> >> > >> >>Joe > >> >> > >> >>Joseph Chiusano > >> >>Booz Allen Hamilton > >> >>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com] > >> >> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:17 PM > >> >> To: Smith, Martin; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for > >> >> Introduction text) > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> >> I like your thoughts and agree that SOA is a response to the > >> >> characteristics of the internet that you list. I also think SOA is > >> >> a response for business. > >> >> We need to answer your question, otherwise SOA will be ( or is > >> >> already ) viewed as a marketing ploy > >> >> See additional thoughts below. > >> >> Sally > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> "Smith, Martin" <Martin.Smith@DHS.GOV> 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 I! nternet environment. > >> >> > >> >> SOA is a strategy that organizes an enterprises functionality > >> >> as services that can be aggregated and/or reused in order to > >> >> achieve business goal(s). To take advantage of services over > >> >> the internet there has to be the ability to understand, > >> >> discover, combine and use the services that reside within the > >> >> enterprise or anywhere on the internet. > >> >> > >> >> 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 implemen! ting 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 > >> >> 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 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 Se! rvices 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >-- > >> >*********** > >> >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 > >> >*********** > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> *********** > >> 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 > >> *********** > > > > > > -- > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > / Ken > > Laskey \ > > | MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 | > > | 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 | > > \ McLean VA 22102-7508 / > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > *** note: phone number changed 4/15/2005 to 703-983-7934 *** > > > > > > > > -- > *********** > 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]