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

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

Joe,

In reading this thread, I noticed your question re: SO vs. SOA.  I  
think this is why the question:

"Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model" vs. "Reference Model  
for Service Oriented Architectures" tweaked in my head a few weeks  
ago.  I find myself typing SO more than SOA lately, and  
Hamid...despite the fact that I am not seeing things in his vision,  
has triggered something in my brain with regards to OO.

Contrasting SO to OO is probably a useful approach.  I view our work  
here as being largely theoretical, which really does put us in line  
with a concept such as OO, which really does not touch language and  
implementation issues.

I really would like to throw out consideration of "RA" completely.   
If we do define any architecture, if an RM can indeed be construed as  
an Architecture, it would be a transcendental architecture -- almost  
spiritual in nature.  The most interesting thing I have read all week  
was a post by Frank on how those of us sitting close to the  
theoretical realm of computer science are basically philosophers more  
than anything else.  SO = Philosophy, and hopefully doctrine  
eventually.  SOA, on the other hand, is practice and adherence to our  
doctrine.

"And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge  
of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear  
pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the  
absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect  
vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness,  
justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve  
the order of them--are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?"
         --Plato, from Republic

Now, the point I am making is not that focusing on architecture is  
stupid.  My point is that a higher order of understanding is required  
to form a basis for future work.

Isn't it glorious to be a philosopher-king?

-Matt (who is amazed that his liberal arts education is useful in his  
chosen field)


On 20-May-05, at 6:44 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> <Quote>
> Does that work for you?
> </Quote>
>
> Not at all. The issue is not about the charter (at least not  
> primarily). I would simply like to see us address the questions  
> that I proposed in the "pulse check" to get a sense of how the TC  
> feels as a whole about these fundamental issues. A charter can say  
> "we are to develop X" and "here is what X is", but if - having said  
> that - when the work begins, it becomes clear that there are still  
> places within the charter where there are room for interpretation,  
> and the interpretation is not unified, I believe it is justified to  
> have clarification.
>
> Then if we see that the majority of the TC members are in the "I'm  
> fine - please proceed" category, there is no issue. If there is,  
> then we should go down the path of re-examining the charter. But  
> that may not even be necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 11:23 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 have been aware of only a few who are wanting to re-examine our
> charter.  Nevertheless, we are democratic.  We will put this up for a
> vote.  If more than one third of the members feel this is worth taking
> time on, we will discuss it.  The one third represents the fact that
> some may not actually vote.  If less than one third select to discuss
> it, then can we please accept the charter?
>
> We will set it up tomorrow and leave it open for one week.  That  
> leaves
> plenty of time if it passes to distribute the questions then  
> compile the
> results.
>
> The rationale is that while a few may still wish to examine it, my
> perception is that the vast majority do accept the charter and want to
> work on a reference model first, then RA.
>
> Does that work for you?
>
> Duane
>
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
>