[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Michael, Your last sentence is particularly insightful, and I do agree with it. I do feel that certain members are pushing certain issues way too hard, and that maybe that pushing will end up causing something ill-conceived to occur -- such as premature branching of the specification. -matt On 6-Jun-05, at 10:02 PM, Michael Stiefel wrote: > "If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to > everything else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it > will be architecture." > > I have never seen satisfactory definitions for reference model and > reference architecture to say what should be included in one as > opposed to the other. Definitions are required, not analogies or > examples. > > I think this is another issue that is a subtext to a lot of our > discussions that has to be settled. > > It certainly is the subtext to the one document or two discussion. > I got a sense at the last conference call, that having two > documents was a way to finesse this issue without really dealing > with it. > > Michael > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]