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

[Michael Stiefel <development@reliablesoftware.com>]

Does the RM understand that some of the concepts are unique and some 
multiple (without an exact number, you could have one circular wall, 3 
walls, 4 walls, etc.)?

Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with concepts such as structural 
integrity. Structural integrity would apply to all house RAs. In my way of 
thinking concepts such as endpoints or orchestration are analogous to this.

In the analogy I would see the reference architecture as Colonial American 
Reference Architecture, or even more specifically Colonial American Cape 
Ann, or Colonial American Greek Revival reference architectures.

Analogies are useful, but they are not definitions.

Michael

At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>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
>>
>>>
>>>