RE: [soa-rm] SOA-RM 1.1 - and then 2.0?

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Where Peter is correct is that those of the TC scrubbed our thoughts 
much more rigorously before we publicly published than done for many 
government documents for which those responsible feel they need to 
release on a schedule.  I would not be surprised if someone finds a 
gap or inconsistency in SOA-RM, but unless the prevalent thoughts 
regarding SOA change, I expect there will be few if any future 
versions.  That doesn't mean there is no need to contemplate future 
maintenance but I wouldn't talk in terms of major new releases.

Ken

At 03:05 PM 10/5/2006, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I would like to very respectfully offer an alternate view: I do in fact
>believe that reference models have versions. In fact, the US federal
>government has expressed (informally, through federal folks mentioning
>at conferences, etc.) that there will be future versions of the FEA Data
>Reference Model (DRM), for example (and as someone who was heavily
>involved in the 2.0 version, I can say that I am very certain that this
>will happen in the next few years). I see "[some reference model] v1.1"
>as distinct from "SOA 1.1" (or 2.0, etc.).
>
>Of course, now folks are talking about Web 3.0 as being the Semantic
>Web+...
>
>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: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net]
>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:49 PM
>To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [soa-rm] SOA-RM 1.1 - and then 2.0?
>
><rant>
>I saw a couple of worrying references to a 1.1 version of the RM, in the
>discussion around the one dissenting vote on the proposed move to a
>standard...
>
>Most of us lambasted Gartner for their SOA 2.0 hype, and I think we
>should be careful: a reference model by definition, imho, does not
>*have* versions: it's *the* reference, not a reference... We need some
>stability in this mad world ;-)
>
>Maybe I'm just allergic to the average developer's approach that all the
>missed bits will appear in the next release cycle but I think we'd be
>playing with fire to try that with the RM.
>
>If there was something wrong or missing, we would have spotted it by
>now, we've been through enough cycles on this.
>If there really *is* something wrong or missing, we should rectify the
>RM by a revision note or correction, but steer way clear of versions...
>
>Please, can we avoid *any* hints about a 1.1 (heaven help us, a 2.0) and
>just STFU on the issue?
></rant>
>
>Peter
>
>-------------
>Peter F Brown
>Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
>Founder, Pensive.eu
>Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
>Lecturer at XML Summer School
>---
>Personal:
>+43 676 610 0250
>http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
>www.XMLbyStealth.net
>www.xmlsummerschool.com

--
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   Ken 
Laskey                                                                \
  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:      703-983-1379   |
   \   McLean VA 22102-7508                                              /
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------