OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


I thought of structural integrity in terms of the entire house, not just a 
wall, but I think your point remains the same.

Granted that each architecture needs to specify its structural integrity, 
but shouldn't the RM have the concept of structural integrity since it is 
an abstract concept shared by all RAs.

Michael

At 02:06 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>The RM does not necessarily have to get into cardinality rules IMO, unless 
>they are very obvious.  In the case of a house, you may not make 
>consistent rules stating that every house has to have at least three walls 
>since a wall can be curved or any number of walls from 3 up.  You may be 
>able to infer from the relationships that there is a certain cardinality 
>if the RM for a house said that each room has one door.
>That would declare an association between the number of rooms to the 
>number of doors.
>
>Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall, which must be specialized for 
>each architecture based on a number criteria.  The RM declares what the 
>wall is and its' purpose, the architect has the job of specifying the 
>actual walls to be used for each architecture and ensuring they map back 
>to requirements.
>
>You are right - analogies are not definitions, however I have found them 
>very useful in conveying the meaning.
>
>Duane
>
>Michael Stiefel wrote:
>
>>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
>>>>
>>>>>
>>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]