Re: [soa-rm] Resolution for Issue #519

["Jeffrey A Estefan" <Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Team,

Joe is correct with respect to his first comment (see below).  There is
actually two typos in my response to Issue #519.  One is "loosely be mapped
to the work current being carried out" should be "loosely be mapped to the
work currently being carried out" (need to change "current" to "currently").
The second one is the one that Joe mentions relative to the RA.  I'll send
an updated response later today.

With respect to Joe's second point, I disagree.   There is nothing in my
response that says that we are committed to adopting the RM-ODP with the
exception of leveraging the notion of viewpoints, and I point out that our
normative reference for viewpoints (and views) is the ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000
Std., not the RM-ODP.  Joe quotes my response by saying "we will be
referencing it" and I did not say that.  I said, we will be "reviewing the
applicability" and I made the clear distinction (twice) that we are going to
do this in a service-oriented context.

Stand by for the slightly updated version, which I'll once again add to
Don's spreadsheet.

 - Jeff

-------------------

I have 2 comments:

(1) Change "and the RM-ODP Architecture standards to the OASIS SOA-RM
emerging standard, respectively." to "and the RM-ODP Architecture
standards to the work of the OASIS SOA-RA SC, respectively." (should
refer to the RA SC)

(2) Rather than take the "we will be referencing it" approach as we have
done in our response below, should we perhaps consider that RM-ODP uses
an object-oriented approach, while we do not, and state that we
recognize that these fundamental differences in the reference models
will make it very difficult for us to leverage anything from RM-ODP?

Joe