I don't think we should include "why we didn't" sections in the
normative part of the specifciation, or even applied RM sections
(WS-*). These should be in separate documents, IMO.
-Matt
Francis McCabe wrote:
> Potential stakeholder's perspectives
>
> This is where we directly address our audiences:
>
> 1. SOA for busy executives
> i.e., what are the benefits of SOA, what architectural constraints
> are *of the essence* and how to use the RM.
> 2. SOA and security
> i.e., explaining why security per se is not a direct part of the
> RM, but how different security considerations may be layered on top
> and how that fits with the overall structure.
> This one is also good for another reason: anyone wishing to ensure
> some -ility on their particular architecture will want to know how to
> map their requirements on to what is offered.
> 3. SOA for developers
> I.e., what are the primary constraints implied by the architecture
> -- as well as those that are *not* implied. How is scalability
> achieved in the RM and what you need to look out for in order to
> achieve scalability in your architecture. More generally, how should
> you ensure that your architecture is a good example of an SOA. How to
> fold legacy stove-pipes into you new SOA systems.
> 4. SOA for Web services
> I.e., how does the RM differ from Web services, how do the WS-*
> specs fit into the RM framework.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>
>> Frank,
>>
>> For those members not familiar with the W3C Web Services Architecture
>> document, could you share your thoughts as to what would go in a
>> potential "Stakehohlder's Perspectives" section for the SOA-RM?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis McCabe"
>> <>
>> To: "Thomas Erl" <>
>> Cc: <>
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 9:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] SOA-RM Outline and Glossary
>>
>>
>>> +1
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2005, at 11:30 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>>>
>>>> During our last conference call Frank McCabe suggested that we
>>>> consider
>>>> using the W3C Web Services Architecture
>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/)
>>>> document's outline as the basis for our reference model outline.
>>>> The parent
>>>> level sections of this outline are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1 Introduction
>>>> 2 Concepts and Relationships
>>>> 3 Stakeholder's Perspectives
>>>> 4 Conclusions
>>>>
>>>> The W3C supplements this document with a separate glossary. As per
>>>> Ken's
>>>> suggestion, we may want to consider adding a glossary as a fifth
>>>> section or as an appendix.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
