Antecedent. Antecedent. Where's my antecedent?
;-)
Rex
At 8:52 PM -0500 4/12/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
>Mike, Ken
>
>Please check out my edits of the sections...There seemed to be good
>and sufficient material for me to work with in what I started
>from...Ugh!
>
>Bob
>
>
>From: Ken Laskey [mailto:]
>Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:03 PM
>To: Francis McCabe
>Cc: Mike Poulin; James Odell;
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>
>I will reread but I thought the insistence was policies not
>referring to contracts.
>
>On Apr 12, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>>I do not believe that we ever signed up for Michaels insistence on
>>contracts not referring to policies. I for one do not.
>>
>>On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>>It appears we agree on the specifics for policies and contracts,
>>>and indeed did discuss much of this before. I'm wondering if
>>>something critical got lost in the last Policy section shuffle
>>>that eld to the current text.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>On Apr 12, 2009, at 7:24 PM, 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: <mailto:>
>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Ken Laskey
>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ken Laskey
>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>McLean VA 22102-7508
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
