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

[Michael Stiefel <development@reliablesoftware.com>]

Or to be concrete about it. If I put some WSDL for my Web service on an FTP 
site, I have a SOA according to our current definition. I too find that 
intuitively difficult.

Michael

At 09:51 AM 5/20/2005, Christopher Bashioum wrote:
>Matt,
>
>Your response below was excellent.  I especially liked the following:
>
><quote>SO = Philosophy, and hopefully doctrine
>eventually.  SOA, on the other hand, is practice and adherence to our
>doctrine. </quote>
>
>This being the case, then, there is value in creating something that can be
>held up to an existing architecture to determine if that architecture
>follows the SO doctrine.
>
>For example, if I expose a bunch of application functionality to the world
>via web services, does that constitute an SOA?  The answer based on our RM
>so far would be 'No', because there is no service description captured in
>metadata that enables discoverability.  However, if I document the web
>service in an interface control document and store that document in a public
>folder somewhere, do I now have an SOA?  Based on our RM so far, the answer
>would be 'Yes' ( which bothers me, as intuitively I don't believe that is an
>SOA)
>
>-----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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >