[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] end plans for SOA-RAF
I would agree that the proposed alternative would require no
less or more time to support than moving forward with the current SOA RAF
document. I also understand the intent of extracting pieces into separate
documents to have concise and even documents to choose when socializing SOA
concepts. However, when pulled apart section three and parts of service
description are about the only parts of the document that could stand
alone. There is much information published similar to what is in the
other sections of the SOA RAF. When pulled apart in this way I think the support
for and extended meanings for section three and service description are
diminished. This will make for a good discussion. Danny From: Francis McCabe
[mailto:fmccabe@gmail.com] A couple of thoughts: 1. It would have been good to have had to opportunity to
discuss this in the RA forum before bringing it to the RM 2. It seems v. complicated - a process within a process. We
do not have the bandwidth to manage it. 3. The net effect will be to gut the spec. 4. I suspect you seriously underestimate the amount of
busiwork needed to partition the spec into standalone documents. 5. The RA was designed as a whole; not a whole collection. In short, I am not in favor of this proposal. Frank On Apr 20, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote:
This
is one of the agenda items and I thought it might be useful to provide an
unusual approach in order to get us thinking. The
underlying assumption is we do not have the cycles or resources to complete all
the unfinished sections we believe to be important for the RAF. One end
state is a Committee Spec where we have things at various levels of
completeness. I consider this to be an unattractive option because I
think that some good work will be overshadowed by the portions that are still
weak. If everything in the document was at a consistently high level of
completion and some areas just weren’t addressed, I think that would be
acceptable. An uneven document is less so. An
alternative I’d like to propose, though not fully worked out, may be the
following. Let us re-couch the RAF as a collection of expositions on
various aspects of SOA. Some of these have been through significant
review and can be identified as something like RAF Key Aspects.
Other areas that are less developed can be identified as RAF Aspects under
Development (RAF-D). Areas where we have said little can be RAF Aspects
for Consideration (RAF-C). The process going forward would be to keep the
TC together as a forum to keep developing these areas as resources and interest
warrant. However, there would not be weekly meetings and much of the work
going forward would be done by individuals or small groups. For example,
white papers such as the one on Willingness that Dave Ellis and I are supposed
to write could begin as a short collection of key thoughts under a RAF-C.
As we have time to further develop our thoughts, this could advance to a RAF-D.
The RAF-D and RAF-C phases would not require TC review and approval, although
comments would always be encouraged. It would, however, take a TBD
approval process (and likely a meeting of the whole) to advance to a RAF Key
Aspect and there would likely be TC action if there was significant heartburn
with something else that had been written. I
believe the advantage of this approach is we keep together a forum and a
product that can grow and can encourage others to participate. We can
continue to grow material as experience with SOA grows but with a low level of
effort from the group as a whole. It also is not an end state where
things are left permanently hanging. This
idea is not completely thought out, so there is room for improvement.
However, if we do this at the level of Committee Spec, I don’t believe we
run afoul of OASIS process and can continue advancement of a product that the
organization can point to with a continuing sense of accomplishment. Again,
this is something out of left field but it can hopefully stir some creative
options. Talk
with you all in 13 hrs. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.
Kenneth Laskey MITRE
Corporation, M/S
H305
phone: 703-983-7934 7515
Colshire Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 McLean
VA 22102-7508 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]