RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

So you don't see any problems regarding any of the below? You're not
aware of anyone expressing concern on our list regarding what it is we
are defining, the scope of it? Hmmmm.....maybe I've been operating in a
different TC.;)

Oh - I am also not referring to what is in our charter. "It is in our
charter" is not, IMO, an effective way to address the concerns that
people have been repeatedly expressing). One can put things in a
charter, then start work, and be unclear as to whether or not they have
strayed from the charter. 

This is a simple request from a TC member to clarify what they are
perceiving is a major disconnect within the TC on several issues, and it
seems that the answer from the Chair on that is "I don't see any issue",
when I believe it should be "Let's address these concerns". 

Thanks,
Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:03 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, 
> etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
> 
> Comments inline:
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> > Duane,
> >  
> > I would like to make a suggestion to help clear up the current 
> > division in our TC on some basic issues, which I believe is truly 
> > inhibiting our ability to move forward in a unified way - and will 
> > continue to do so unless we address it at this time.
> >  
> > The most prominent division that I have perceived over the 
> course of 
> > several weeks is: "If we are defining a reference model, what is it 
> > for? Is it for a single service? (call this 
> "service-orientation") or 
> > SOA?" IOW, "Is it SO-RM, or SOA-RM?"
> 
> I think that there is no disagreement of what a RM is or what 
> we are calling the TC.  That has been specified in the 
> charter from day 1 in very clear language.  We did have a 
> brief conversation about the name but it was my observation 
> that only 1 or 2 were even willing to change it.  The rest of 
> the 91 members seem to be in agreement.  Likewise - who is 
> still confused as to the purpose of a reference model?
> 
> >  
> > The second most prominent division that I have perceived over the 
> > course of several weeks is: "Where is the line drawn between RM and 
> > RA?". Last week I began a thread[1] on this question, and I 
> thank all 
> > who contributed (Matt, Duane, Ken, Rex, Francis, any others 
> I missed).
> > However, I think we really need to drill down into this 
> question more 
> > and have a crystal clear answer before we go any farther, 
> else run the 
> > risk of creating an RM that cannot easily "bridge to" an RA.
> 
> This is something that is less clear but I feel we are on 
> track with our current activities.  Matt's email clarified it 
> very well IMO.  We now have a collective responsibility to 
> ensure our RM is usable, unique etc.  We must be vigilant in 
> that regard.
> 
> >  
> > So, I would like to propose a solution:
> >  
> > I would like to propose that we take an informal poll (not a formal
> > vote) across the TC as a "pulse check" that will enable us to come 
> > closer together on these vital issues. The poll would be 
> comprised of 
> > the following questions (folks would simply put an "*" to 
> the left of 
> > the letter of their response):
> >  
> > <Questions>
> > (1) Do you believe that the RM in our current draft is:
> >  
> > A. A service-orientation reference model B. A SOA reference 
> model C. 
> > Other
> 
> Joseph - I am sorry but this is in our charter. it is not up 
> for negotiation.  Everyone who joined this TC had the 
> opportunity to read the charter.  We allowed discussion on it 
> once or twice and my recollection is that there is clear 
> consensus on both the name and purpose of the TC.
> 
> Reference Models are clearly scoped and defined.  This TC 
> should not impose to re-define what a reference model is.  
> First - it will probably not fly with established software 
> architects.  Second - we already decided to adopt and use the 
> industry standard definition (again - in the charter).
> 
> We have much more important work to contemplate.  I would 
> like to harness the collective experience and energy of this 
> TC to get the core model nailed down.
> 
> As we progress, we will have the opportunity to examine and 
> tune the RM to be useful.
> 
> Duane
> 
> >
> >
>