RE: [soa-rm] Greater SOA-RM Visibility is Needed!

Its not always confusion, in some cases its been more a case that people who cope with the problems understand that SOA is about Services and Architecture and the way you THINK about systems, whereas most vendors are focused on selling the “Shiny Nickel” (http://blueprints.jot.com/WikiHome/Shiny+Nickel+Anti-Pattern) which means they are more focused on the technology bells and whistles rather than actually providing solutions to complex problems (e.g. distributed debugging, modelling of SOA etc).

My statement at a few events recently (Microsoft and Sun in the UK) was that companies should take the RM as their definition of SOA when they are putting out an RFI/RFP or defining the principles internally, and I’m pushing for that to be the official internal statement here (which is slightly trickier).

Another reason for getting the RM out and visible is to help educate some of the other standards groups out there who might be thinking of going through exactly the same process just using slightly different words. A quick google indicates that press releases from OASIS are pretty effective at getting the word around the various RSS feeds and the like.

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: 29 March 2006 19:23
To: Jones, Steve G
Cc: Duane Nickull; Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Greater SOA-RM Visibility is Needed!

Steve,

re visibility by those wanting to do vice those offering product, this is pretty much what I'd expect. Those who are wanting to do are confused by the competing (and incomplete) hype and welcome unbiased guidance; those wanting to sell have no incentive to change their marketing message unless they feel they have no choice -- to them we are a nuisance.

Possibly an overly cynical view but I think an accurate one.

Ken

On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Jones, Steve G wrote:

On a related topic, I did a Microsoft Channel 9 thing at a conference last week and plugged the SOA RM quite a bit, oddly (or not) I’ve found that companies wanting to do SOA have tended to have a higher visibility of it than product companies.

One element that I still think we should be trying to do is putting at an all points press release from OASIS and the contributors to the group to help increase the google count for the RM and to raise its profile in the standard journals out there.

Steve

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: 29 March 2006 18:57
To: Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa..gov; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Greater SOA-RM Visibility is Needed!

One more thing – our messaging should include the fact that the RM can be mapped to many technology families, but we should emphasize WS-* as one for sure.

*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************

From: Jeffrey A Estefan [mailto:Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:32 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm] Greater SOA-RM Visibility is Needed!

Duane and the SOA-RM TC,

I'm attending the Ground System Architectures Workshop (GSAW) in L.A. this week and just this morning, I sat through a number of talks describing SOA in general and SOA in the context of ground system architectures for space data systems. There was a great deal of discussion surrounding SOA and Web Services and unfortunately, not enough about distinguishing between the two (i.e., architectural style vs. technology). The only references to OASIS were with respect to various WS-* specs. I was even more disheartened to hear one speaker state explicitly during his talk (and captured as a bullet) that "no standards-based reference model exists for SOA." Of course, I had to set the record straight during the Q&A following this speaker's presentation, and was promptly approached by many in the audience asking where they could find a copy of the SOA-RM Public Draft!

My point is that each and every speaker this morning used a different lexicon for defining SOA and none of them acknowledged or even made reference to the OASIS SOA-RM. I think we need to do some better job marketing this work. Do the OASIS By-Laws allow us to do this? We [this body of work] needs much more visibility whether in various industry rags, user group forums, consortia, etc. This is particularly true in the Government contexts (i.e., Military, Civil, and Intel space communities) that I witnessed today.

Would like to hear your thoughts on how we might address this problem.

Regards...

- Jeff Estefan, JPL

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.

---

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

soa-rm message