[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
What if a core value of your architecture is that all consumers somehow are seeded with knowledge of everyone's FTP server..e.g. (Bonjour/zeroconf/mdns)? -matt On 20-May-05, at 11:47 AM, Michael Stiefel wrote: > 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 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]