[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
I would be very willing to take on documenting it, but there is a prerequisite that is missing, which was part of my message in this thread - and that is coming to agreement within the TC as whether our current RM is truly SOA - which also has a prerequisite of coming to aggrement within the TC on what we believe SOA is (is more than 1 service required to have SOA, are shared services a fundamental component, etc.). Our current draft states that SOA is a type of EA, and we have already determined (I believe) that that is not the case. Kind Regards, 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 11:08 PM > Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, > etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together > > Joseph: > > I will concur that the definition between RA and RM could use > documenting. Is that a task you may be willing to take on? > > Duane > > 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?" > > > > 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. > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]