Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business

[John Harby <jharby@gmail.com>]

Referring back to the days of CORBA, wasn't there a set of refactored
general constructs such as the ORB, GIOP, etc. then domain specific
specifications as well? It's semantics but mixing these could pollute
the result.

On 5/11/05, Sally St. Amand <sallystamand@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 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" 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
> > >>> ***********
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> >
>