[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA RA
Where a reference model is a description of the concepts that are important in defining the concept, a reference architecture is an abstract sample realization of the concept. Frank On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Don Flinn wrote: > Joe > > The purpose of the Reference Architecture is to be a reference for > people that will be writing concrete architectures. Therefore, we > need > to be moderate in our term of concrete for the RA. It is definitely > more concrete than the RM, but not as concrete as the architecture > for a > specific instance. We need a definition of an RA. Any suggestions? > > Don > > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 14:32 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> Thanks for your thoughts Ken. >> >> I wonder if it may be best to draw the RM/RA line sooner rather than >> later, as it will enable folks to think in terms of each of those >> (as we >> know, RM=abstract, RA=concrete) rather than creating a mish mosh of >> things and then sorting it out later. The latter approach may >> potentially lead to information not being included in either or both, >> because folks were not thinking in terms of the specific context >> (RM or >> RA). >> >> Just an alternate suggestion for us to perhaps consider as well. >> >> Joe >> >> Joseph Chiusano >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:18 PM >>> To: Don Flinn; Rex Brooks >>> Cc: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA RA >>> >>> This is a little late because I am catching up on random >>> threads but may I suggest a way forward: >>> >>> We seem to have general agreement that we will also write a >>> RA document so I think it is less critical to have a rigid >>> RM/RA line. Whatever we write is likely to have a home in >>> one of the documents. Let's allow some latitude in what >>> initially makes it into the RM because we can draw the line >>> later and move something to the RA document. An editor can >>> even identify something as likely RA material. What we gain >>> is the ability to capture our thoughts without debating >>> whether they are the right thoughts at the moment. >>> >>> My belated $0.02. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> At 12:50 AM 6/12/2005, Don Flinn wrote: >>> >>>> Rex >>>> >>>> "Fear not" Nothing will be agreed upon until some time after the >>>> telecom. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I went to a play tonight with some Shakespearian scenes. >>>> >>>> Don >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 16:23 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>> >>>>> I understand, Don, honest. >>>>> >>>>> But Duane said we would settle this in the meeting, and I >>>>> >>> am abiding >>> >>>>> by >>>>> >>>> that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, >>>>> Rex >>>>> >>>>> At 5:59 PM -0400 6/11/05, Don Flinn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rex >>>>>> >>>>>> You have made a number of good points. Let me try to give my >>>>>> viewpoint, which, I stress, is just my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) IMO the TC has expressed an opinion that we should >>>>>> >>> have an RA in >>> >>>>>> addition to an RM. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) We are spending a lot of energy and time in debating whether >>>>>> this concept or that concept should or shouldn't be in the RM. >>>>>> This is not limited to the SC but covers the many items >>>>>> >>> that I put >>> >>>>>> in the straw-man RA TOC. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) A number of the TC members feel strongly that the RM should >>>>>> abide strictly with the reference model definition in >>>>>> >>> the present >>> >>>>>> RM specification, but are amenably, I believe, to having a >>>>>> companion RA document. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather than continuously debate what should be where, >>>>>> >>> lets develop >>> >>>>>> the text for these concepts in the RA. With the text we >>>>>> >>> will have >>> >>>>>> something (excuse the term) concrete to use to >>>>>> >>> potentially decide >>> >>>>>> later if certain text should be moved from the RA to the RM. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not intend to carry out a straw poll, only to determine if >>>>>> there were enough members that were willing to >>>>>> >>> contribute to an RA. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lastly, I'm not trying to rush this - too much -:). >>>>>> >>> However, if we >>> >>>>>> are to produce an RA for this specification we should begin the >>>>>> effort before too long. I am sensitive to conflicting >>>>>> >>> obligations >>> >>>>>> on all our time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 12:09 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Don, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really feel you are getting ahead of the TC here. >>>>>>> >>> We have not >>> >>>>>>> yet settled the issue of the SO/SOA RM yet. We were told we >>>>>>> would entertain a motion on it in our meeting next week. So >>>>>>> let's see how that turns out before we start making >>>>>>> >>> plans for an RA yet, okay? >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I appreciate your earnestness in wanting to get this >>>>>>> >>> behind us, >>> >>>>>>> but let's not assume a fait accompli where there is only an >>>>>>> absence of continued voicings of opposition. I have kept >>>>>>> relatively quiet on this because my views should be known by >>>>>>> now, and it seemed like it was only polite to refrain from >>>>>>> continuing to express it. I also suggested paths to >>>>>>> >>> avoid making >>> >>>>>>> an SOA out of S alone, because I will oppose that, >>>>>>> >>> but I suggest >>> >>>>>>> you not approach this as if it was a straw poll to be >>>>>>> >>> taken on >>> >>>>>>> the basis of a lack of opposition or even a lack of >>>>>>> >>> discussion. >>> >>>>>>> Some of us are very busy with the upcoming DRM Public >>>>>>> >>> Forum Monday. >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please don't take this wrong way, but also please don't put >>>>>>> words in my mouth when I am only allowing the dust to settle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ciao, >>>>>>> Rex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. I would support an RA, regardless of whether SC >>>>>>> >>> ends up in >>> >>>>>>> an SOA but we need to get that settled first before >>>>>>> >>> approaching >>> >>>>>>> the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At 12:38 PM -0400 6/11/05, Don Flinn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Last week I uploaded a straw-man Table of Contents, >>>>>>>> >>> TOC, for a >>> >>>>>>> SOA >Reference Architecture to be used for the second >>>>>>> >>> document >>> >>>>>>> of the >specification at - http://www.oasis- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> open.org/committees/download.php/13012/ReferenceArchitectureT >>>> >>> OC_05-06.doc . >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does this begin to meet your concerns? If so, please note >>>>>>>> >>>> acceptance or >>>> >>>>>>>> suggest modifications to the proposed TOC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is also a request to all who are interested in >>>>>>>> >>> an SOA RA >>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>> comment >>>> >>>>>>>> on the TOC, either yea, nay or needs mod so we may >>>>>>>> >>> determine if >>> >>>> there is >>>> >>>>>>>> any interested in producing an RA. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the concerns of all those interested are >>>>>>>> >>> satisfied, work >>> >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> >>>> begin >>>> >>>>>>>> on writing the RA, provided, of course, that there >>>>>>>> >>> is an interest. >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 15:46 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I recently learned that a service consumer does >>>>>>>>> >>> not belong >>> >>>>>>> in a RM >> because it would require infrastructure >>>>>>> >>> to connect >>> >>>>>>> that service >>>>>>> >>>> consumer >>>> >>>>>>>>> with services (and the same holds for connecting >>>>>>>>> >>> services to >>> >>>>>>> each >> other). Once we begin representing >>>>>>> >>> infrastructure, it >>> >>>>>>> requires >> architecture - which is the territory of >>>>>>> >>> an RA not an RM. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which means that by definition of RM, it is impossible to >>>>>>>>> >>>> create an RM >>>> >>>>>>>>> for SOA - such a thing must be an RA. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joseph Chiusano >>>>>>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>>>>>>>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> > From: >>>>>>> McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca >> > >>>>>>> [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:27 PM >> > To: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> peter@justbrown.net; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >>>>>>> >>>> Subject: >>>> >>>>>>> [soa-rm] RE: Consumer mechanism for "advertising" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> for a service >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nicely stated Peter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Based on your clarification, I would propose >>>>>>>>>> >>> then that a >>> >>>>>>>>>> consumer (should the RM have one) has a set of >>>>>>>>>> >>> properties >>> >>>>>>>>>> (one of which could be state) that is not >>>>>>>>>> >>> defined by the RM >>> >>>>>>>>>> but are defined by a reference architecture. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: June 10, 2005 1:32 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> > Cc: McGregor, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wesley >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Consumer mechanism for >>>>>>>>>> >>> "advertising" for a >>> >>>> service >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> << File: Consumer concept.png >> Wes: >>>>>>>>>> We are back to the problem/issue of intent and context: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> from >> > the moment an application/agent establishes an >>>>>>> intention to >> > be a service consumer then it >> >>>>>>> >>>> *is* a >>>> >>>>>>> service consumer (at the very least in its context, >>>>>>> >>>>>> even >>>>>> >>>>>>> if nothing out there recognises it as such); in the >>>>>>> >>> same >> > >>> >>>>>>> way that a service provider (and indeed a service) is a >> > >>>>>>> service provider (or a service) from the moment there >>>>>>> >>> is an >> >>> >>>>>>>> intention for it to be so, irrespective of invocation, >>>>>>>> >>>> execution, etc. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In an RA, I think it's more helpful to think of >>>>>>>>>> >>> service > >>> >>>>>>>>> consumer as one concept. The "variants" you >>>>>>>>> >>> propose are then >>> >>>>>>>>>> properties of an association (eg "state=invoked", >> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "state=run-time", etc) between the consumer "concept" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and the actual "real world" implementation (see >>>>>>>>>> >>> attached >>> >>>>>>>>>> diagram - I'm not sure what to call these >>>>>>>>>> >>> different "aspects" >>> >>>>>>>>>> or states of being a consumer tho'...ideas on a >>>>>>>>>> >>> postcard please). >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are practical and powerful reasons for >>>>>>>>>> >>> making this >>> >>>>>>>>>> conceptual separation, not least in the area of >>>>>>>>>> >>> "semantic >>> >>>>>>> web >> > service" implementations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I'll leave that stuff until Vancouver.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Don Flinn >>>>>>>> President, Flint Security LLC >>>>>>>> Tel: 781-856-7230 >>>>>>>> Fax: 781-631-7693 >>>>>>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu >>>>>>>> http://flintsecurity.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Don Flinn >>>>>> President, Flint Security LLC >>>>>> Tel: 781-856-7230 >>>>>> Fax: 781-631-7693 >>>>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu >>>>>> http://flintsecurity.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Don Flinn >>>> President, Flint Security LLC >>>> Tel: 781-856-7230 >>>> Fax: 781-631-7693 >>>> e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu >>>> http://flintsecurity.com >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------------------- >>> / Ken >>> Laskey >>> \ >>> | MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 | >>> | 7515 Colshire Drive fax: >>> 703-983-1379 | >>> \ McLean VA 22102-7508 >>> / >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- > Don Flinn > President, Flint Security LLC > Tel: 781-856-7230 > Fax: 781-631-7693 > e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu > http://flintsecurity.com > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]