[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
Very nice thought Rex. Sounds like a fabric service to me. Wes -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: May 25, 2005 1:39 PM To: McGregor, Wesley; 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? 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]