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!"


Could we then conceive of endpoints and orchestration in such a fashion? Or 
is the critical point aspect or attribute in which case endpoint qualifies, 
but orchestration does not.

To make a grammatical analogy, the RM defines a substantive, and therefore 
adjectives (aspects and attributes) are part of the RM, but verbs (actions) 
are not.

(side note: I know verbs have aspect, but we are not using the term that way).

Michael

At 02:34 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>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]