I think we need to slightly expand our treatment
of policy, but I don't think we should be getting
too specific or detailed. We're just establishing
a foundation, after all.
Cheers,
Rex
At 6:24 PM -0500 4/12/09, Mike Poulin wrote:
>As I recall, a year ago I initiated a
>discussion here about relationship between
>Policies and Contracts. Now, it looks like James
>has picked up my position. I said that time that:
>1) contracts (due to their private matter) may
>not refer to each other while policies may and
>effectively do
>2) contracts may include more things than just
>policies or references to policies, e.g. a
>selection of a subset of services interfaces
>derived from the service description. This
>information is not really a policy though it may
>be expressed in the form of policy assertions
>3) there may be different types of policies -
>for the service development and for the
>run-time. The latter must be mentioned in the
>service contracts as well as in the service
>descriptions (otherwise the consumer is not
>obliged to be compliant with non-specified
>policies), the former does not need such
>mentioning but they might be included into
>development tools and design controls.
>
>In any case, Policies AND Contracts deserve much more attention in SOA RM.
>
>- Michael
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Odell"
>To:
>Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:46:06 -0400
>
>Hi all,
>
>After yet another reading of the SOA-RA
>(Foundation?) and having sat through the recent
>spate of meetings, I have the following say
>about the reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>
>Overall, I think that the chapters and topics
>are sequenced in a coherent and logical manner.
> Perhaps, it is because I read it too many times
>now. But, I don’t think so.
>Also, I understand the need to minimize the
>amount of work needed on the SOA-RA at this
>point in its development. We need to get it
>released for public comment — without
>compromising quality and understandability, of
>course.
>Having said this, the only thing that bothers me
>enough to suggest a reorganizational change is
>the area of Policies:
>
>1) Policies, in general, are depicted in
>document far earlier than they are finally
>addressed (by 40-50 pages). Since policies —
>IMO — are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA,
>I would like to see them addressed earlier. (My
>personal opinion is that policies are not
>mentioned anywhere near the amount that they
>should. For example, they are used in events,
>composition of services, roles, and
>organizations. However, since this would
>involve additions to the current document, I
>will not push this)
>
>2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic
>with contracts. While policies are used for
>contracts, Policy is a standalone concept —
>which neither depends on nor is used solely with
>Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies
>as a separate notion.) Why is this reasonable?
> Because policies are used in a variety of
>situations — only one of which is contracts. By
>placing Policies in lock step with (and almost
>subordinate to) with Contracts is not
>appropriate, IMO.
>
>3) My suggestion: separate Policies and
>Contracts into two distinct subsections (e.g.,
>4.4 and 4.5).
>
>In short, this would provide clarity for the
>notion of Policy and not require much change to
>the current document.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>Jim
>
>
>--
>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>Get a Free Account at <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
