Re: [soa-rm] explaination of RM to RA etc.

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Don:

As I understand the term, once an instance of something can be 
implemented, it is no longer "abstract".  (Please - someone correct me 
if I am wrong).


Therefor, to answer your questions:


Don Flinn wrote:

>Duane 
>
>I have a few questions.
>
>1. How abstract can/should the RA be?  IMO the more abstract the broader
>the coverage of potential, derived, concrete architectures.  
>  
>
DN - It must be able to be implemented.  The RM, by its abstract nature, 
must not be able to be implemented.  This has and will continue to 
confuse many people with no architectural or OO knowledge.

>2. Do you mean the Profiles to be specific, abstract aspects of the RA?
>  
>
DN - Can you please elaborate?

>3. I'm not sure of the meaning of Related Models in this context.
>  
>
DN - if someone decides to model the network aspects of an RA using the 
OSI reference model or if they also add in "process oriented" aspects 
into the architecture, these models might be considered related.  I had 
not decided on specific tests to determine the qualification of that 
labeled association, however would enjoy any thoughts you, or anyone 
else has.

Cheers

Duane (back from vacation and TOTTTTTTAAAALLLLY  relaxed).

>
>Don 
>
>On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 11:46 -0700, Duane Nickull wrote:
>  
>
>>This is a graphic I developed this morning to depict how a RM may relate 
>>to an SOA Framework.  Not sure if it is helpful or if we want to pursue 
>>something like this in a separate white paper.
>>
>>Any comments would be appreciated.
>>
>>Duane
>>    
>>
>
>  
>