[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 Nickullwrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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]