[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]