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] Definition of business


We need to be able to convey concept(s) of commerce or communication (eg knowledge transfer) that have legal or ethical considerations attached to them. More semantics.

John Harby <jharby@gmail.com> 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 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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]