RE: [soa-rm] Proposed resolution for Issue 508

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

This is a general comment on the multiple comments that we have received
to the tune of that below (capabilities, resources, means, and what is
out of scope): If it makes sense for us (and will not delay our
process), we may want to consider having a very brief "Scope" section
early on in the spec, with this type of information listed. I know we
discuss it in other places (e.g. "1.1 What is a Reference Model"), but
it couldn't hurt to have it in a section explicitly labeled for this
purpose, with clear, concise bulleted statements.

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: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:53 AM
To: SOA-RM
Subject: [soa-rm] Proposed resolution for Issue 508

The issue is "How does capability relate to resources and means?"

A capability, according to WordNet is

"the quality of being capable -- physically or intellectually or
legally; "he worked to the limits of his capability"

There is a relationship in that almost certainly capability implies
resources and means to realize that capability. However, we are
interested in the RM in what those resources realize, not is how it is
achieved.

Any architecture that purported to deliver an SOA would probably address
capabilities more directly. This is especially the case for Enterprise
systems where it is not sufficient to say "it will be done"; you would
be required to prove it.

However, for the Reference Model, whose focus is trying to model what is
important about SOA, we believe we do not need to unpack the concept of
capability further.