Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I agree mostly with Michael here, Thanks Michael.

My caveat would be that we don't necessarily have to come out with 
the SOA RM/RA, though I do think we need both, if we can't agree to a 
succession of components. I think it would be acceptable to offer a 
statement of the components we intend to build as part of an overall 
work product, then just come out with the SO RM  first.

Ciao,
Rex

At 5:50 PM -0400 6/7/05, Michael Stiefel wrote:
>I am not so sure that a SO RM will be confusing if we come out with 
>a SOA RA/RM at the same time. One particular large vendor has been 
>talking about their product being focused on SO and not SOA.
>
>Michael
>
>At 03:52 PM 6/7/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>
>>>- A Service Orientation Reference Model (SO RM) - that is, don't 
>>>label this as "SOA RM" but rather "SO RM"
>>>- A SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA)
>>>
>>>rather than a single SOA Reference Model (SOA RM).
>>Joseph:
>>
>>Our intent (as expressed in our charter) has always been to do this.
>>The only difference is the change of the name from SOA RM to SO RM.
>>
>>Pro of renaming to SO RM:
>>
>>- more accurate reflection of what it really is.
>>
>>Con of renaming to SO RM:
>>
>>- losing the correlation with SOA.  We are trying to define SOA. 
>>If we change the name, it may be perceived as defining something 
>>different which means we are in the same place as we started when 
>>we finish.
>>- People may not reconcile the work with SOA which is the primary 
>>goal of the TC
>>
>>If there is a desire to explore this further, I would ask that 
>>someone who is a voting member please ask that this be put up for a 
>>web ballot.
>>
>>Duane


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309