At 10:55 AM 8/10/2010, Michael Stiefel wrote:
>Throwing more fuel on the fire...
>
>Profiles are not synonymous with architecture as I understand them.
Agreed.
>Use cases outline how a service/application/subsystem behaves given some
>external action. This includes both normal and error cases. This corresponds
>to the approach we have started.
Agreed.
>A profile might include what technologies could be used to implement
>the use cases.
Agreed.
>Even a reference architecture is a fairly complicated beast because you have
>to think about implementation details and prescriptive guidance. Is that a
>path we want to go down? I personally am interested in ID-cloud
>architecture, and Thomas' questions are a good starting point, but that
>seems out of scope for the TC.
I assumed the question of architecture was one of timing/priority, not whether
it was in-scope or out-of-scope. If mistaken, happy to take
guidance. That said,
not trying to stimulate an architecture discussion if the group isn't
willing to do so.
I assumed the several comments offered during the call yesterday implied there
are several in the group that are. Again, happy to take guidance if mistaken.
Tom
