[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Ah.
I think that now I see. When I read Ken’s original text, I replaced
“…reflect the business process…” with “…reflect <some> business
process” I can see how that would read to suggest that
SOA must always reflect a particular business process a la BPM. Agree
that is not the case. I was trying to tie the business process in the
second sentence back to the business process to which we referred in the phrase
“the specifics of a business process do not change the basic concepts as
described in the RM” while simultaneously not suggesting that there is
only 1 business process (“the business process”). I broke the
thought into two sentences because the first becomes very powerful in its own
right. Word selection got me on the second. Thoughts? Rebekah Rebekah Associate Booz Allen Hamilton Voice: (703) 377-1471 Fax: (703)
902-3457 From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] I read “ the
specific architecture that one designs and implements will reflect <some>
business process” To infer that SOA will reflect business
processes. Duane ******************************* From: Metz
Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com] Duane
– I am not
reading the words below to suggest BPM as necessary. Can you point out
where the changed words between Ken’s original thought and my rewording
indicate BPM? It may help me to understand where word selection may cause
misinterpretation. Rebekah Rebekah Associate Booz Allen
Hamilton Voice:
(703) 377-1471 Fax:
(703) 902-3457 From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] I
disagree. SOA does not need BPM nor will all SOA’s be used for BPM.
BPM is one of *many*
possible “things” that may use SOA as a base layer. Listing
only BPM infers some form of priority or preference. The SOA cannot see
nor should it care that BPM is there. TCP/IP is not aware of services or
BPM either but will likely be used in most implementations. It does not
state anywhere in the TCP/IP specs that TCP/IP implementations will reflect business
requirements or processes. Again – that is only one possible use of
many. Duane ******************************* From: Metz
Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com] How
about words such as “The specifics of a business
process do not change the basic SOA concepts as described in the RM. However,
the specific architecture that one designs and implements will reflect
<some> business process. Within this context, the architecture
should build upon specific service instances which correspond to the real world
effects that the business process hopes to realize.” I thought that the W3C recognized that IT service (in
particular web service) interactions always occur via a virtual agent on both
sides of the interaction? Here we’re starting to get into the
notion that there are several ‘levels’ of critical entities within
a service interaction that all remain congruent to one another within the
course of a service interaction. Rebekah From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Comments
inline: ******************************* From: Ken
Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] I think we need to add some words to the RM to capture
this discussion. We cover part of this in the beginning of Section 3.2.1
but need to be more specific that: DN:
given that we have scoped the RM for SOA to software architecture and it is
abstract, is this correct and relevant? How can a human interface with a
SOAP node? Since a human actor that invokes a service by using a SOAP
client is invisible to the service tier, it is probably not correct or relevant
as worded. I think I know what you are trying to say though.
DN: save
this thought for RA.
DN:
agree
DN: or
an unbounded array of other options.
DN:
concur.
D |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]