Thanks Sally. My impression was that near the end of yesterday's call,
the TC reached consensus (not consensus by vote, but rather verbal consensus
with no dissenting opinions expressed) that our current Figure 2-1 really
represents a service orientation reference model. Furthermore, for some that was
all we needed - while others felt that we needed more (i.e. there was not
consensus on this point, nor do I expect that there would be given the 2 "camps"
that have formed). In my opinion, all viewpoints are valid for those that hold
them - we just need a mechanism to reflect the consensus of the TC in our
work.
So to this end, we decided that the best approach forward was to
construct the 2 reference models described in my first paragraph below (2
e-mails down), the second one building on the first. This would also allow us to
keep the name of the TC as the SOA-RM TC, and not change it to the SO-RM
(Service Orientation RM) TC, because we will ultimately produce a SOA RM.
Speaking personally, I believe that this is an excellent approach - i.e.
first building a foundation (service orientation), then expanding on it for SOA.
The intent of my "pulse check" proposal was to raise awareness that there were
indeed 2 camps within the TC (and I will assert that it was this way from the
very start), which it did.
And so here we are.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: Sally St. Amand
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:54
AM
To:
Subject: Re: [soa-rm]
New Name of Current Spec (Was RE: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM Meeting Minutes
June 01, 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc)
uploaded)
Joe
I had to leave the call a bit early so I may have missed a point. But
right before I left Rebekah made, I thought, the point that the TC does not
have concensus and we should focus on gaining concensus around concepts rather
than methods of graphical display or names.
I do not believe we have concensus on concepts which is why I voted 'yes'
on your ballot proposal. I believe we need more discussion to achieve
concensus only then should we adopt a formal means to display it or name it.
Your efforts to give the discussion momentum are appreciated.
Sally
Chiusano Joseph
<> wrote:
Just
to clarify, based on our discussion at the end of today's call:
Our
current spec will be renamed to SO-RM (Service Orientation
Reference
Model), and another will follow called SOA-RM
(Service-Oriented
Architecture Reference Model) which will extend the
SO-RM spec.
And perhaps after that (within our TC, or perhaps within
a different TC)
we can have a POA-RM (Process-Oriented Architecture
Reference Model),
which will extend the SOA-RM
spec.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us
online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - SOA RM
Meeting Minutes June 01,
> 2005 (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].do!
c) uploaded
>
> The document named SOA RM Meeting Minutes June
01, 2005
> (Meeting Minutes June 01, 2005[1].doc) has been submitted
by
> Mr Christopher Bashioum to the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC
> document repository.
>
> Document Description:
>
Minutes for the Bi-Weekly teleconferenece call.
>
> View
Document Details:
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.p
>
hp?document_id=12909
>
> Download Document:
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.p
>
hp/12909/Meeting%20Minutes%20June%2001%2C%202005%5B1%5D.doc
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your
>
email application may be breaking the link into two pieces.
> You may
be able to copy and paste the entire link address
> into the address
field of your web browser.
>
> -OASIS Open
Administration
>
