[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded)
So, the message that I got was that the ballot itself was dead, not the debate behind it. I also certainly do not believe that the debate between 'service orientation' and 'service oriented' is over. I do think that there is some confusion/question about what a reference model is. My take is that it is something akin to OMG's MDA: a set of concepts that come together to enable one to capture the key essence of an architecture. The trouble with polarizing debates is that people get emotional, and evolution is confused with 'backing down'. That is why I do think it is helpful to paint everyone into two camps. I for one, do not fit into any camp all that comfortably (never have). Frank On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:52 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:47 AM >> To: Chiusano Joseph >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: >> [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 >> (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded) >> >> Joe: >> I think that you misread the result of the call yesterday. >> > > Please support - what was your read? Why was mine different? > > >> I also think that it is less than productive to focus on >> the idea of there being two 'camps'. >> > > Understood - no one can be wrong about this. I will respectfully > choose > to differ on that - and if there indeed are two "camps" within a > group, > I believe it is highly productive to recognize their existence and to > try and work toward a solution that best satisfies both of those > camps. > Which is what I believe we have done given yesterday's call. > > Joe > > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > >> I have had a fair amount of experience in participating in >> standards activities. One thing that has been driven home to >> me many times is that no one person has 'the whole picture' >> when they go in to a process. Anyone who feels otherwise >> (i.e., that they know everything and it is up to the rest to >> catch up and agree) is just naive. >> There is often a significant amount of mutual education in >> a group like ours: of people being educated about a topic >> that they thought they already knew. In this particular case, >> there is (IMO) a genuine difficulty about the nature of a >> reference model. There is also some inevitable to-ing and >> fro-ing over the scope. >> I suggest that we trust the process and work towards a >> single understanding of what we are trying to do. >> >> Frank >> >> On Jun 2, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks Sally. My impression was that near the end of >>> >> yesterday's call, >> >>> the TC reached consensus (not consensus by vote, but rather verbal >>> consensus with no dissenting opinions expressed) that our current >>> Figure 2-1 really represents a service orientation reference model. >>> Furthermore, for some that was all we needed - while others >>> >> felt that >> >>> we needed more (i.e. there was not consensus on this point, >>> >> nor do I >> >>> expect that there would be given the 2 "camps" that have >>> >> formed). In >> >>> my opinion, all viewpoints are valid for those that hold them - we >>> just need a mechanism to reflect the consensus of the TC in >>> >> our work. >> >>> >>> So to this end, we decided that the best approach forward was to >>> construct the 2 reference models described in my first >>> >> paragraph below >> >>> (2 e-mails down), the second one building on the first. This would >>> also allow us to keep the name of the TC as the SOA-RM TC, and not >>> change it to the SO-RM (Service Orientation RM) TC, because we will >>> ultimately produce a SOA RM. >>> >>> Speaking personally, I believe that this is an excellent approach - >>> i.e. first building a foundation (service orientation), >>> >> then expanding >> >>> on it for SOA. The intent of my "pulse check" proposal was to raise >>> awareness that there were indeed 2 camps within the TC (and I will >>> assert that it was this way from the very start), which it did. >>> >>> And so here we are. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Joseph Chiusano >>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >>> >>> From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:54 AM >>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: [soa-rm] >>> Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting Minutes June >>> 01, 2005[1].doc) uploaded) >>> >>> Joe >>> I had to leave the call a bit early so I may have missed a point. >>> But right before I left Rebekah made, I thought, the point >>> >> that the TC >> >>> does not have concensus and we should focus on gaining concensus >>> around concepts rather than methods of graphical display or names. >>> I do not believe we have concensus on concepts which is why I voted >>> 'yes' on your ballot proposal. I believe we need more discussion to >>> achieve concensus only then should we adopt a formal means >>> >> to display >> >>> it or name it. >>> Your efforts to give the discussion momentum are appreciated. >>> Sally >>> >>> Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote: >>> Just to clarify, based on our discussion at the end of today's call: >>> >>> Our current spec will be renamed to SO-RM (Service Orientation >>> Reference Model), and another will follow called SOA-RM >>> (Service-Oriented Architecture Reference Model) which will >>> >> extend the >> >>> SO-RM spec. >>> >>> And perhaps after that (within our TC, or perhaps within a >>> >> different >> >>> TC) we can have a POA-RM (Process-Oriented Architecture Reference >>> Model), which will extend the SOA-RM spec. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Joseph Chiusano >>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: cbashioum@mitre.org [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:45 PM >>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, >>>> 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].do! c) uploaded >>>> >>>> The document named SOA RM Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005 (Meeting >>>> Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) has been submitted by Mr >>>> >> Christopher >> >>>> Bashioum to the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC document repository. >>>> >>>> Document Description: >>>> Minutes for the Bi-Weekly teleconferenece call. >>>> >>>> View Document Details: >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.p >>>> hp?document_id=12909 >>>> >>>> Download Document: >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.p >>>> hp/12909/Meeting%20Minutes%20June%2001%2C%202005%5B1%5D.doc >>>> >>>> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email >>>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces. >>>> You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address >>>> >> into the >> >>>> address field of your web browser. >>>> >>>> -OASIS Open Administration >>>> >>>> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]