> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Cc:
> 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 think that you misread the result of the call yesterday.
Please support - what was your read? Why was mine different?
> I also think that it is less than productive to focus on
> the idea of there being two 'camps'.
Understood - no one can be wrong about this. I will respectfully choose
to differ on that - and if there indeed are two "camps" within a group,
I believe it is highly productive to recognize their existence and to
try and work toward a solution that best satisfies both of those camps.
Which is what I believe we have done given yesterday's call.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> I have had a fair amount of experience in participating in
> standards activities. One thing that has been driven home to
> me many times is that no one person has 'the whole picture'
> when they go in to a process. Anyone who feels otherwise
> (i.e., that they know everything and it is up to the rest to
> catch up and agree) is just naive.
> There is often a significant amount of mutual education in
> a group like ours: of people being educated about a topic
> that they thought they already knew. In this particular case,
> there is (IMO) a genuine difficulty about the nature of a
> reference model. There is also some inevitable to-ing and
> fro-ing over the scope.
> I suggest that we trust the process and work towards a
> single understanding of what we are trying to do.
>
> Frank
>
> On Jun 2, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
>
>
