I see no reason why what people are calling a SOA RM is not abstract enough
for this definition.
I wish they never used the word architecture in SOA. Maybe we should do
what SOAP 1.2 did and make the acronym the name.
Michael
At 12:20 PM 6/7/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>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
