soa-rm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Whither the No-Service-Consumer Motion?
- From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@justbrown.net>
- To: <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:46:11 +0200
Title: Whither the No-Service-Consumer Motion?
Rex:
In an earlier posting I apologised for not having had
the time to put that together and suggested holding it over to the F2F in
Vancouver. That seems to be the current default setting.
All
the best,
-Peter
Hi Folks,
This being the one week in which I have a tiny bit of extra time, while
working on "Ontology Manageement for Federal Agencies Part 2," and in light of
the fact that this critical and unresolved issue was not ready for our last TC
meeting, AND because I have prepared myself to to write a Minority Report in
anticipation of losing the ballot we have agreed to conduct, I can't help but
wonder what happened to Peter Brown's Motion to officially place the Service
Consumer out of the SO?, or is it SOA? RM.
I would truly appreciate having the motion out for a ballot and a
clarification of whether the RM is SO or SOA. To say that those of us, or at
least one of those of us, who sincerely believe that keeping the Service
Consumer out of the Reference Model is like tying one hand behind our backs, and
after having collected a bit of outside feedback, tepid though it is and
constrained as it is by the obvious headlong rush of the industry to embrace
ANYTHING that can create a marketing BUZZ, I would appreciate being able to
finish up my own engagement with this issue while I have a break and just before
all of Europe and most of North America takes a two month siesta. Otherwise, you
can expect me to proprose my own motion to include the Service Consumer at some
point in the future, so heads up, please!
Also, for those of us stateside, I would like to remind you that the
juggernaut called the Federal Enterprise Architecture Data Reference Model is
rolling downhill at an increasing pace, so if you want to have a say in it, you
should be aware that this effort also appears to be set to move forward come
hell or high water, or both, this summer, but there is public feedback
mechanism
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/drm-public
Please do not mistake courtesy for silence in not pestering us all with
this on a continual basis nor should this courtesy be construed as anything
resembling consent. I see no sense in making a nuisance out of this and I am
reasonable able to read the handwriting on the wall to use a well worn trope,
and I respect everyone's time as much as my own, but it is time to get this out
of the way.
Lastly, the proponents out there of the Enterprise Service Bus and SOA
Fabric both are continuing to whip their steeds into as much of a lather as they
can in order to own a rarified position in the driver's seat of SOA. Neither
concept works for me, but the marketing hype continues with more than a healthy
dollop froth which is only to be expected, after all.
However, I have noted a tendency in this TC to use the fabric concept, and
I don't think it is warranted, and in fact, is likely to place us in a
particular camp or school of thought. I don't think we should be doing
that.
It seems to me that we should identify in the RM or in the RA (if
that is the course we choose for including a need for which a service ought to
be considered before developed rather than the other way round), that there
are various frameworks which be used in SOA, including UDDI and ebXML
Registry/Repository, and Extended Metadata Registry (XMDR) for ISO 11179, in
order to build well-maintained and reliable registries-repositories of resources
through which Services and Service Consumers can identify, locate and verify
each other. We don't need nice, catchy phraseology from one or another camp,
vendor community or school of thought.
As someone noted, we are already saddled by a marketing concept phrase in
our very existence as the "Service-Oriented Architecture" Reference Model. Can
we not compound this situation with a back-handed endorsement of one or another
largely vendor-centric label for a non-vendor-centric framework? May we also not
restrict ourselves to UDDI or ebXML or ISO 11179?
Ciao,
Rex
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications
Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel:
510-849-2309
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]