OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: What is our prority for an RA?



What is the passcode for the call?


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net]
Sent: 15 February 2006 15:53
To: 'Ken Laskey'
Cc: 'Frank McCabe'; 'SOA-RM'
Subject: [soa-rm] RE: What is our prority for an RA?

Ken:
That's a lot clearer in my head now: you are right too that we should not
concentrate on domain specific issues but rather, as you hint, to highlight
general principles that a specific domain might throw up and that would be
of value in others...

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: 15 February 2006 16:41
To: peter@justbrown.net
Cc: 'Frank McCabe'; 'SOA-RM'
Subject: Re: What is our prority for an RA?

Peter,

I think you misunderstood my intentions.  I do not want to specifically look
at WS* but rather what does an RA look like that reflects a WS approach,
i.e. one that WS* hopes to codify?  In the best of circumstances, such an RA
would guide what some of the WS* specs need to accomplish.  (In reality, WS*
will probably continue unabated in its own reality.)

The next question would be how does such an RA differ from one not taking a
WS approach?  That is one of the reasons I asked about whether something
like infrastructure services to monitor service health and performance would
be in scope.  I can see this being an essential part of any RA, regardless
of eventual implementation.

I do not, however, think we should concentrate on solving any particular
domain unless we can emphasize general principles that would be valuable to
other domains as well.

Ken


On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Peter F Brown wrote:


	Hmmm...what do we actually mean by "reference architecture"? Is it
(and
	advance apologies for possibly lax semantics):

	a) an abstract architecture that is nonetheless specific to a
particular
	platform?; or
	b) an abstract architecture that is specific for a particular
implementation
	domain?

	Ken's posting would seem to point to a), positioning WS* against
other
	possible platforms, for example.

	My take, until now - not that I've thought it through thoroughly -
has been
	b), so for example the idea of a reference architecture for the
eGovernment
	space, which has a lot of particular, common characteristics but
needs
	developing and implementing across different infrastructures.

	I think both approaches are important but reflect differing
priorities as to
	architecting 'means' and 'objectives' (a and b respectively): for
example in
	the eGovernment space in Europe, one of our priorities (and Matt
hints at
	this in his posting yesterday) is to provide a means of discovering,
	invoking, orchestrating and all the other SOA stuff, across
	administrative/jurisdictional boundaries *and* infrastructures: for
us,
	developing - for example - an RA for WS* or .net or ebXML or
whatever, is
	less compelling than developing an RA for eGovernment, enabling us
to
	identify interoperability points and common semantics (or "semantic
	engagement") in *common operations* across dissimilar platforms...

	FWIW, I think the debate about meta-services has missed a key point
here: in
	my opinion, we are not aiming for the blossoming of 'higher-order'
services
	that look after service discovery and orchestration needs across
such
	institutional or infrastructure boundaries (as many of the exchanges
seem to
	imply) but rather should try to ensure that "semantic engagement" is
	possible *directly* between two dissimilar services than nonetheless
respect
	the RM in its entirety.

	Peter

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
	Sent: 15 February 2006 00:56
	To: Francis McCabe
	Cc: SOA-RM
	Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [soa-ra] Telcon details for 2/15/06 (OOPS)

	Frank,

	I know you said you expect we'll just do one RA and then run out of
steam,
	but is it reasonable to consider two RAs: one Web service based, the
other
	non-WS.  The first is something everyone is looking for and the
second would
	demonstrate that there might be more than just what everyone is
looking for.

	Also, would an RA include things like infrastructure services to
monitor
	service health and performance?

	Just some ideas before I forget them again.

	Ken

	On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:


	This is the agenda and access details for the Reference Architecture
	SC telcon on 2/15/06.

	At this time, the SC has not been set up formally by the OASIS
	staff. (Action pending)


	Agenda:
	1. Administrivia
	  Rollcall
	  Scribe
	2. OASIS process
	3. Requirements capture
	4. AOB (Any Old B***)

	Frank



	The telephone details are:

	CALL DATE: FEB-15-2006 (Wednesday)

	CALL TIME: 08:00 AM PACIFIC TIME

	DURATION:  1 hr 30 min

	USA Toll Free Number: 888-455-0046
	USA Toll Number: +1-210-234-0034

	PASSCODE: 10564
	********

	Press *6 mute/unmute individual line.






	---
	Ken Laskey
	MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
	7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
	McLean VA 22102-7508







---
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508






This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,  distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this  message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all  copies of this message.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]