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!"


Sorry, don't agree.  I'll agree that we might want to construct a
"service architecture RM" as an atomic unit of a "services oriented
architecture RM", but to me that latter is our proper target, by which I
mean that that's what I need out of this process for my organization.

Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:07 PM
Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop It!"

Precisely!!!!

Duane

Christopher Bashioum wrote:

> Duane - that's a good point.  I'm beginning to think that
orchestration
>itself is not part of SOA, rather, the end result of an SOA is an
>architecture of services that are "orchestratable".
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]