[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
Finally, someone who is listening to and responding clearly to concerns:) Thanks Matt - I will absorb this in a bit. Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:33 AM > To: SOA-RM > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, > etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]