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

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Sorry about my poor choice of words - by "we will reference it" I meant
"we will refer to it" i.e. "we will review it". I can see how my poor
choice of words could have been interpreted as they were. We're on the
same page now. 

Having said that: I wonder if we should make a more general statement
along the lines of "our work is done in consideration of all work that
we consider to be applicable", rather than saying that we will be
reviewing the applicability of a particular work. Taking the latter
approach may lead to a later question by representatives of that work of
"was it applicable?" and if not, "why did you not consider it
applicable?" - a potential pandora's box that I don't know that we want
to open.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey A Estefan [mailto:Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa.gov] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:35 AM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Resolution for Issue #519

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