[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business
I'm in the same boat. I don't want our work getting painted with the B2B brush John Harby wrote: >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]