[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] explaination of RM to RA etc.
What is the "it" in this phrase? The "something" or the "instance" The RA? If you mean "once an instance of a (reference?) architecture can be implemented, that architecture is no longer abstract": I don't like the word abstract popping up here...maybe I just need a holiday. Anyway, once an instance can be implemented it is obviously not abstract (if an instance cannot be implemented, is it an instance? Sorry, but terminology is going to haunt us all the way...) To say that an RM "must not be able to be implemented" is tautological and possibly confusing. Its purpose is to conceptualise the necessary "building blocks" and how they should be used together, no more, so inevitably it cannot be implemented as that is not its function: it is a bit like saying that "bricks and mortar must not be able to be implemented": you will get those who will respond: "of course I can, I just need some blueprints, building standards and guidelines, and a few willing workers and we can build that castle...", but that's not our point. The point is that an RM describes the what (and the why), but not the how. The RA on the other hand should provide the how - not of a specific implementation - but generically: does that mean the RA is (or is not) abstract? Not sure it's helpful...For example, is an MDA-based Platform Independent Model a reference architecture? If so, is it abstract? I don't think so, but it is generic: it can be implemented in different (platform specific) manners. So, RM, always abstract; RA, sufficiently detailed to enable *any* (conformant) implementation but sufficiently generic as to not prescribe any *particular* implementation Peter (not yet on holiday but wishing he was...) -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: 06 July 2005 01:11 To: flinn@alum.mit.edu Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] explaination of RM to RA etc. 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 >> >> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]