RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Yes - thanks Duane. So taking the data model/messages route: 

2 concrete architectures that are being compared for some purpose are
each themselves mapped to 2 different reference architectures. However,
it so happens (for our purposes) that both reference architectures were
derived from the SOA-RM reference model (whatever it eventually turns
out to be in its final version).

The messaging component of each CA (concrete architecture) is mapped to
messaging component of each RA, then to the data model component of the
SOA-RM RM. This enables the messaging component of each CA to now be
associated/compared as needed.

Q: How many folks would go so far back as the RM to perform such a
comparison, when each RA itself has a messaging component?

Joe
 
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:06 PM
> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus 
> Fabric.Stop It!"
> 
> Jospeh:
> 
> It is not quite ready to be done due to its' immaturity, 
> however doing so will be the real test.
> 
> One would look at an item like the "Data Model" and then in a 
> reference architecture, would make a specific set of messages 
> that get sent into and out of the service.  For example, if 
> the service had an abstract function to multiply two numbers 
> and return the result, the data model is "two integers in, 
> one integer out".
> 
> I could make a set of schemas that constrain XML instances on 
> the wire and express that data model in the XML syntax.
> 
> This is one example of how we go from abstract Data Model to 
> concrete Messages.  Similar examples include going from 
> abstract "policy" to concrete policies expressed using 
> WS-Policy and WS-Policy Attachment (or similar mechanism).
> 
> Everything that is in the RM ensures that the architects make 
> consistent logical divisions in how they think about architecture. 
> 
> Does that explain it?
> 
> Duane
> 
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> >Thanks Duane - I think this would be great for the intro section.
> >
> >Can someone now relate this to our current Figure 2-1? How 
> would an RA 
> >be derived from that? This will help us understand better the RM->RA 
> >roadmap that is required.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >Joseph Chiusano
> >Booz Allen Hamilton
> >Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> > 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:57 PM
> >>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop 
> >>It!"
> >>
> >>RA means Reference Architecture.  As per the previous 
> emails on this 
> >>subject, it is a generalized architecture.
> >>
> >>The relationship is that architects use a RM as a guiding 
> model when 
> >>building a RA.
> >>
> >>For example, if you are architecting a house, an RM may explain the 
> >>concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls, foundations, floors, 
> >>roofs, ceilings etc.  It is abstract however.  There is nothing 
> >>specific like a wall with measurements such as 8 feet high. 
>  Note that 
> >>the RM has only one each of these things - it does not have 
> 4, 16, 23 
> >>walls, just one as a concept.
> >>
> >>The architect may uses this model to create a specific architecture 
> >>for a specific house (accounting for such things as 
> property, incline, 
> >>climate etc) or an architect MAY elect to use it to build a more 
> >>generalized reference architecture.
> >> The latter is often done by architects who design houses.  
> >>When they sell a house, they must often re-architect the RA for 
> >>specific implementation details such as incline of land, climate, 
> >>facing the sun etc..
> >>
> >>So why do we need a RM?  Simple - we now have logical divisions 
> >>amongst the components of a house and what they mean.  That 
> way, when 
> >>a company says " we are a flooring company..", that is meaningful 
> >>since we all know what that means.  The same applies to a roofing 
> >>company.  Without the basic consensus on the logical divisions, a 
> >>roofing contractor may also try to include the ceiling and walls as 
> >>part of his offerings.
> >>That would not work and not allow the general contractor to build a 
> >>house very easily since there may not be consensus upon the 
> division 
> >>of labor and components to build the house.
> >>
> >>Do you guys think an explanation of this nature may be good 
> to include 
> >>in the introduction section?
> >>
> >>Duane
> >>
> >>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>What is an RA? What is the relationship between an RM and an
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>RA? What
> >>    
> >>
> >>>is the RM->RA path for SOA?
> >>>
> >>>Matt also submitted last week (I believe) that we may not
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>even need an
> >>    
> >>
> >>>RA. How should that change our notion of RM, if at all?
> >>>
> >>>Joe
> >>>
> >>>Joseph Chiusano
> >>>Booz Allen Hamilton
> >>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
>