[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!"
+1, I think the more we can apply the KISS principal the better <g> On 5/25/05, Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote: > Less of which camp and more of how can we provide value for and get > acceptance by the largest audience regardless of camp. > > Ken > > On May 25, 2005, at 12:15 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > > Yes, that is certainly a valid viewpoint. I am seeing many also > > specifying that SOA encompasses what we are calling the POA layer as > > well. I think it's important to recognize that there are 2 camps out > > there - the main thing for us is to determine which camp we belong to > > (meaning the TC as a whole). > > > > Joe > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:11 PM > >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > >> Fabric.Stop It!" > >> > >> Joseph: > >> > >> I will assert that it is not part of SOA or the SOA RM. > >> Orchestration is enabled by SOA, not part of SOA itself IMO. > >> Process Oriented Architecture (POA) is what many are > >> envisioning as the layer over SOA and enabled by SOA. > >> > >> Duane > >> > >> Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:01 AM > >>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus Fabric.Stop > >>>> It!" > >>>> > >>>> Duane - that's a good point. I'm beginning to think that > >>>> orchestration itself is not part of SOA, > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> We could mean that - or we could mean that orchestration > >> itself is not > >>> part of our SOA reference model. Two different things. > >>> > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> Joseph Chiusano > >>> Booz Allen Hamilton > >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > Ken Laskey > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > McLean VA 22102-7508 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]