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

[<McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca>]

Thanks Peter and to quote you:

"but rather should try to ensure that "semantic engagement" is possible *directly* between two dissimilar services than nonetheless respect the RM in its entirety."

Exactly what I was trying to get at but failed miserably it seems. Service abstraction to a Meta level can add value. I am just not sure how to articulate it yet.

Regards,

Wes
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] 
Sent:	February 15, 2006 10:13 AM
To:	'Frank McCabe'; 'Ken Laskey'
Cc:	'SOA-RM'
Subject:	[soa-rm] What is our prority for an RA?

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