[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Fwd: [soa-rm] Public Review of ReferenceArchitecture Foundation for Service Oriented Architecture Version 1.0
What is the call in number? From: Ken Laskey
[mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Unless there are specific issues to be considered, couldn't
we handle the wordsmithing offline? Ken On Nov 18, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:
I think that it might be a good idea to discuss this on the
call today. On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Lublinsky, Boris wrote:
Here is what I have so far. Any comments are welcome. From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Too late to argue the fine points of Joint Action :-) but
here are observations and suggested mods for the first two and last two answers. Ken On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
A go at answering my questions ... :)
An architectural description of the SOA paradigm. What that
means is a description of the key concepts and their relationships that make a
SOA-based ecosystem work. per section 1.1.2 This
Reference Architecture Foundation is an abstract realization of SOA, focusing
on the elements and their
relationships needed to enable SOA-based systems to be used, realized and
owned; while avoiding reliance
on specific concrete technologies. In section 1.1.1, we say the "key concepts and their
relationships" is the RM.
2. What is its purpose? It is not a prescription for an actual architecture. It is
not possible to use the RAF as a 'blueprint' for a particular solution.
However, it can definitely be used to verify the scope and purpose of any
architecture and technology aimed at building SOA-based ecosystems. Let's lead with what the RAF is and not with what it isn't: While the RM talks to concepts and their relationships, the
RAF identifies architectural elements that will appear in a SOA solution.
This still requires design of a concrete architecture - one doesn't build
a solution from the RAF - but with the RAF as a guide, the RAF elements should
be identifiable in the concrete architecture.
The RAF is significantly higher-level in purpose and scope
than particular technologies such as Web service and Rest-ful services. We have
expressly avoided adopting any particular technology. However, if you want to see how to apply web service
technology then the RAF gives important guidance. It identifies key
requirements that need to be addressed in areas of using and combining
services, security, governance and in the social structures that need to be
representing in a true SOA ecosystem. One thing that the RAF is not, is a specific guide on how to
build an SOA ecosystem to meet a particular problem. For that, the SOAML
represents excellent tool for elucidating the particulars of an actual system.
4. What is in the RAF? The RAF is composed of three main sections, or views. The
first addresses what a SOA ecosystem is, in terms of the people involved and
their relationship to the technology driving a SOA system. The second addresses
some of the key elements of building SOA ecosystems; the importance of
descriptions, the importance and role of interaction and of policies. The third
section focuses on what it means to own a SOA ecosystem. This section focuses
on the governance of SOA ecosystems, the management of SOA systems, what
testing means in the context of a large-scale system that is never rebooted,
and the key aspects of security in SOA ecosystems.
5. What is a Joint Action? (sic) In order for services to deliver, it requires the
interaction between the consumers and the providers of
services. Interaction between participants in a SOA ecosystem is mediated
electronically. These participants are potentially in different ownership
domains. In order for two participants to interact they must simultaneously act
individually and in concert: individually in terms of the communications sent
and received, in concert in terms of the interactions they are part of. A joint action is any action that requires two or more
participants. A simple example is communication: every communication requires
both a speaker and a listener. (Although there may be more than one of each).
Without both roles being exercised, there is no communication: it is inherently
joint in nature. In fact, the interactions between service providers and
consumers has many levels in which the concept of joint action applies. At the
lowest levels, simply sending and receiving messages is joint in nature. At
higher levels, the actions that are mediated by communication are also joint in
nature: opening accounts, broadcasting emergency information, buying and
selling goods. At still higher levels, actions may often involve the social
status of the participants. Signing contracts changes the status of
participants: promises are made and policies are established. These social
actions are also inherently joint in nature.
6. What is different from PR1? While PR1 established many of the aspects of the RAF a great
deal of refinement in many areas of the RAF have been adjusted. The Ecosystem
view, in particular, has seen the greatest refinement. However, we have also
added significant new sections in the form of governance and testing. In
addition, the name of the specification itself has changed. The addition of the
term "Foundation" reflects an appreciation of the relationship
between our work and the work of others in the sphere of SOA-based systems. Governance has been revised in places but is essentially the
same as in PR1. The ecosystem view has seen the most significant changes
and I think the security section and possibly others are noticeably different.
I need to sit down with PR1 and PR2 side by side to answer this.
7. What happens next? While the RAF is substantially complete; there are definite
areas that need further work. In particular the governance and management
sections need more refinement. However, the committee believes that the current
work is sufficiently well developed that observers of the effort deserve the
opportunity to comment on the specification. I would replace the middle sentence with: In
particular, governance is essentially complete but we need to decide how to elaborate
management and whether that will be integral to the governance material or
separate as it appears in PR2. The ecosystem view has seen major work
since PR1 and there are still significant discussions to be completed there.
On Nov 16, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Lublinsky, Boris wrote:
We can split questions if this will work for you and Frank. We
can have different answers. I need something by the week end, so there is still
time. Two of you will be fine, but if someone else is bored and wants
to contribute, this will be great From: Laskey, Ken [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Just getting to today’s email but there seems to already be a
good start on this. Do you want the interview with Frank as RA SC chair,
with me as RM TC chair, or some combination? Anything is fine as long as
we do a good job of getting out the word. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305
phone:
703-983-7934 7515 Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] Frank, Those are perfect. Any volunteers for answering? From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fmccabe@gmail.com] Some suggested questions: 1. What is the RAF? 2. What is its purpose? 3. How does it relate to Web services, Rest
Services, SOAML, etc. 4. What is in the RAF? 5. What is a Joint Action? (sic) 6. What is different from PR1? 7. What happens next? On Nov 15, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Lublinsky, Boris wrote: Gentlemen, Will
you be intersted in creating the interview piece about it for Infoq? We
can create a Q&A and I will take care of the rest From: Ken Laskey [klaskey@mitre.org] Congratulations!
We have published PR2. I'll
be sending an email to the soa-rm list encouraging dissemination far and wide,
but before I do this, I was looking to see what we sent out as general review
guidance when PR1 went out for review. In particular, besides using the
Excel spreadsheet internally, did we provide the template externally too?
I remember getting a few external comments but I don't remember if we
massaged those into our format or if they came in that way. I've
looked through my email archives and haven't found anything particularly
useful. Can anyone else find or recall anything? Ken Begin
forwarded message: From: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> Date: November 13, 2009
11:41:58 PM EST Cc: "soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org"
<soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>,
OASIS TAB <tab@lists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken
Laskey MITRE
Corporation, M/S H305 phone:
703-983-7934 7515
Colshire Drive
fax:
703-983-1379 McLean
VA 22102-7508 The
information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and
delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or
paper files. The information contained in this communication may be
CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any
copy of it from your computer or paper files. The
information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and
delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or
paper files. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive
fax:
703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
The
information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and
delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper
files. <RAFSOA.docx> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive
fax:
703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]