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!"


Since Structural Integrity is an aspect of all houses, it could be part 
of a RM as an abstract concept.  Even if you do not explicitly design a 
house to have a certain set of structural integrity parameters, it still 
does.  It is not a component itself, just an aspect or attribute.

Duane


Michael Stiefel wrote:

> 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]