Michael:
It is in our charter:
"Reference Model - A reference model is an abstract framework for
understanding significant relationships among the entities of some
environment, and for the development of consistent standards or
specifications supporting that environment. A reference model is based
on a small number of unifying concepts and may be used as a basis for
education and explaining standards to a non-specialist. [1] A reference
model is not directly tied to any standards, technologies or other
concrete implementation details, but it does seek to provide a common
semantics that can be used unambiguously across and between different
implementations."
This definition is a mixture of quotes from several top software architects.
Cheers
Duane
Michael Stiefel wrote:
> "If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to
> everything else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it
> will be architecture."
>
> I have never seen satisfactory definitions for reference model and
> reference architecture to say what should be included in one as
> opposed to the other. Definitions are required, not analogies or
> examples.
>
> I think this is another issue that is a subtext to a lot of our
> discussions that has to be settled.
>
> It certainly is the subtext to the one document or two discussion. I
> got a sense at the last conference call, that having two documents was
> a way to finesse this issue without really dealing with it.
>
> Michael
>
