[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39 PM > To: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line > 201, Figure 2-1 > > Not to cause too much more roiling, but it just occurred to > me that, as a potential consumer who does not find a specific > service ready to be consumed, might we not also want to allow > consumers a mechanism in our RM by which they can advertise > for a service? If so, what do we call that? eBay. ;) In all honesty, I was actually half-serious - I foresee the day where large-scale "services markets" will come into existence. In fact, if you add a "Priceline" aspect to it, a service consumer can search for a service whose price (perhaps per transaction) meets its requirement. But we're very far from that. The rest is another thread, on another list. In summary, I think the notion you mention is far-future - too far to be mentioned in our spec. Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > Where in the > model does it belong? It is much like a service request for > which there is not at a given point in time, an available service. > > Hmmmnnn? > Rex > > At 10:13 AM -0400 5/25/05, <McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca> wrote: > >I am in agreement with this. > > > >This implies then that there is no real dependency on Service from > >Service Description other than to allow a possible link to > the service > >(a placeholder if you will) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] > >Sent: May 25, 2005 9:05 AM > >To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > Fabric.Stop It!" > > > > I would think that one would want to be able to describe a service > >independent of whether or not it is consumable at a given > point in time > >to enable the concurrent development of services. In which case you > >would want the service description to indicate whether or not the > >service was available for consumption (and if not, then > maybe the target date for availability). > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca > >[mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca] > >Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:14 PM > >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > Fabric.Stop It!" > > > >Duane, > > > >I agree with you. There is no point describing a service if > a link to > >its endpoint cannot be found. > > > >Does this then imply that we have a "must-have" relationship > which is > >far stricter than just a dependency? > > > >Finally, why describe a service if it cannot be consumed, for future > >reservations maybe similar to XML namespaces? > > > >Comments anyone... > > > >Wes > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >Sent: May 24, 2005 2:56 PM > >To: Michael Stiefel > >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > Fabric.Stop > >It!" > > > >Endpoints are part of a service description IMO. Orchestration of > >multiple services is out of the scope of the core RM, much the same > >way as how multiple houses are positioned next to each other > in a grid > >layout is un-necessary in order to define a RM for house. > > > >A service or house do not have to exist amongst multiple houses in > >order to be services/houses. > > > >Duane > > > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > -- > Rex Brooks > President, CEO > Starbourne Communications Design > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison > Berkeley, CA 94702 > Tel: 510-849-2309 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]