[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business
My concern comes from spending a good deal of time in the biotech space where "business" would turn off those who consider their applications "scientific". On 5/11/05, Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com> wrote: > I cannot imagine a legitimate reason to define or use the word > "business" in our specification. > > -matt > Duane Nickull wrote: > > > John: > > > > Thank you - that is more elegantly stated that the way I wrote that > > question. > > > > Anyone care to post an opinion? > > > > Duane > > > > John Harby wrote: > > > >> 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]