[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of business
Not my clearest wording. Yes, your rewording is closer to what I meant.
Ken
At 10:27 AM 5/11/2005, 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 <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
>***********
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ 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 ***
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]