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

["Christopher Bashioum" <cbashioum@mitre.org>]

Yes - I think it is worth putting this illustration into the doc 

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:57 PM
Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"

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
> 
>  
>
>>
>>    
>>