Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
> This is an idea that I see you have been pushing very hard almost from
> the start of our TC, yet I believe some of us are perplexed as to why
> introduction of a service consumer into an RM is against the notion of
> RM. Can you please clarify for us?
With pleasure. The basic tenet of a Reference Models are that they are
abstract. If we show both a service provider and a service consumer,
then we have "infrastructure" which is now architecture rather than a
model. If we have an infrastructure, it is concrete rather than abstract.
This is a commonly used convention for most software architecture. Once
again, I will point at the OSI seven layer stack. There is not a
"sender" and a "receiver" even though it is a communication stack
model. If it did, it would no longer be a reference model.
We (this TC) do need to demonstrate where and how an SC fits in with the
notion of the RM. I agree with this given the confusion. The plan I
would advocate is that we finish our Reference Model without the SC in
the core model, then demonstrate in Appendix "B" how one may use the
reference model to develop architecture (very simple example). In this
example, we can demonstrate that the SC is present and show how the data
model becomes the "message", how the contract is formed etc.
We also have the option of creating a Reference Architecture, which can
be built using WS-* standards. This is probably the work that I think
many will feel is very valuable for their specific purposes. IMO - this
is a better way to deliver our message since it will be in alignment
with conventions used by many software architects.
The reason you may have perceived that I have pushed hard on this is
that I see a dangerous turn of events if this TC single handedly tries
to re-define the notion of Reference Models to be concrete rather than
abstract. IMO - our work would be largely ignored, or worse, it could
becomes an example of how not to build RM's.
I hope this clarifies this.
Cheers
Duane
