Ken started an *excellent* list of questions that will help to flesh out
the SOA RM and our assumptions about it. Based on that discussion
thread, the UML vs. mind-mapping discussions and the technical vs.
non-technical discussion, I suggest that we should first agree on *who*
the intended audiences of the reference model are? Having a clear
definition of intended audience will direct the content, representation
and tone of the components/sections/portions of the reference model. It
may also resolve the editorial approach discussions as well.
I don't believe that saying technical and non-technical audiences is
sufficient clarification. There are several types of "techies" that all
require different types of information. Are we distinguishing between
them? For the non-technical, are we providing material only at the
executive primer level? I know that when I first start exploring a
reference model or standard, I would find it tremendously useful to
understand what the target audience is and to frame the problem somewhat
before presenting the solution.
With specific reference to Ken's original email ...
<Quote>
Might it not be good to start by listing the capabilities an SOA
enables?
</Quote>
I would add that we consider both technically and business-oriented
capabilities.
Again, my 2 cents.
Rebekah
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schuldt, Ron L [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:19 PM
> To: Don Flinn;
> Cc: ;
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] On UML
>
> I concur with Don's assessment of the situation. The SOA-RM
> needs to communicate to both the non-technical and technical
> audiences.
>
> If others agree, then perhaps we need a section specifically
> oriented to the non-technical and another section to the technical.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Ron Schuldt
> Senior Staff Systems Architect
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
> Littleton, CO 80127
> 303-977-1414
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Flinn [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:08 PM
> To:
> Cc: ;
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] On UML
>
>
> One of the initial points that we need to agree upon is who
> is the target audience(s) for the SOA RM. SOA falls under
> what may be described as a "disruptive technology". When a
> business adapts an SOA it will change the way it does
> business in a number of ways. (Anecdotal information from
> business leaders is that they are hesitant about employing
> the SOA model, not because of the technical expense but
> because of expenses related to change in major parts of their business
> model.) One resultant change that is envisioned is that a
> business's service oriented architecture will be strongly
> influenced, if not led, by business architects, supported by
> technical architects.
>
> If the TC agrees with this observation then, arguably, a
> major component of the audience will be the non-technical person.
>
> Don
>
> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 12:43 -0500, wrote:
> > Frank -
> >
> > I think I see your point. The target audience for this
> specification
> > would be the determining factor. If the audience of the SOA RM was
> the
> > non-technical strategic thinker, then UML certainly would
> 'not' be the
> > answer. I do feel, however, that since this is a SOA RM, denoting
> both
> > architecture 'concepts' and RM as the end objective, the
> deliverable
> > will ultimately provide better value to all of us 'techies'
> if using a
> > common standard (wonder that!) to represent the model.
> >
> > I would also argue that UML helps to funnel complex mind maps with
> 'many
> > relationships' into something more tangible, easier to
> grasp for many.
> > We want to avoid abstraction to the point of obfuscation of
> concrete
> > relationships wherever possible.
> >
> > I believe the mind maps to be a viable solution to expand further
> > 'predicate logic' (as you put) in the informal model. Not
> sure I see
> > your number 3 as a disadvantage.
> >
> > TM
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> [mailto:]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:11 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [soa-rm] On UML
> >
> > The issue with UML are
> > 1. A somewhat spurious sense of formality. In fact, the
> semantics of
> > even UML 2.0 are less than clear on even the basics such as
> what does
> > inheritance mean?
> > 2. The strong bias towards one relationship: isa, when in
> reality we
> > will need a great many more relationships: describes, has, owns,
> > implements, responsible-for, correlates, etc. etc.
> > 3. The strong bias (on the part of certain vendors) to
> automatically
> > generating code from UML, resulting in a tendency to 'go concrete'
> very
> > quickly.
> >
> > An alternate suggestion: mind maps. A mind map is simply a
> collection
> of
> > concepts and relationships connecting them. V. simple, and in my
> > experience v. flexible. It is also possible to develop rigour by
> mapping
> > into predicate logic.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> --
> Don Flinn
> President, Flint Security LLC
> Tel: 781-856-7230
> Fax: 781-631-7693
> e-mail:
> http://flintsecurity.com
>
>
