OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[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


Matt:
        In regard to your quote from Plato's Republic and the conclusion you drew:

"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."

I agree, but I think we should also consider the words of his student Aristotle:

"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics,  Book I, Section 3

In considering concepts of SOA, RM, RA, etc. we may have to allow for some lack of precision, and rely on intuition because of the nature of the subject matter.

Michael


At 07:32 AM 5/20/2005, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
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]