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

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

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

<Quote>

This is the TC process at work.  Can we please give it a chance?
</Quote>

 

Please clarify why you believe that a TC member asking that we poll the TC informally to gain clarification on issues that are fundamental to the TC's mission is outside of the normal TC process.

 

Joe

---

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 11:27 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

The current draft is a work in progress and we are actively editing it
now.  It will change to reflect TC consensus.  What else do you want? 
This is the TC process at work.  Can we please give it a chance?

None of us have stated that our current draft is truly SOA, nor should
we until we have TC consensus.

Duane

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>>