[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
Yes - thanks Michael. Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:56 AM > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, > etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together > > I infer from your statement that you maintain that the scope > of the TC == current scope of the RM. In other words we > cannot go beyond the current scope of the RM without > violating our charter. > > I think what Joe is trying to say is that the charter of the > TC includes expanding the RM to include other abstractions. > These other abstractions might include what is needed to > handle multiple services. > > Michael > > At 09:55 AM 5/20/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > >The scope of the TC, as defined in our charter cannot be increased > >without re-chartering the TC. This is a hard rule of OASIS. > This is > >the reason why this TC exists instead of simply expanding > the scope of the ebSOA TC. > > > >Duane > > > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > >>My understanding of what Joe is asking is to see if the TC > thinks that > >>the current scope of the RM is enough, or if the scope of the RM > >>should be extended. > >> > >>He is not asking for the charter to be changed. > >> > >>Michael > >> > >>At 06:44 AM 5/20/2005, 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]