Rebekah:
Wise words. Thanks! Seeking understanding is always a good idea.
BTW - has anyone else noticed a huge lag between sending out a post and
receiving it back? I seem to be selectively receiving messages in no
particular temporal order.
Duane
Metz Rebekah wrote:
>Duane,
>
>I agree that the committee needs to reach some consensus on these
>issues.
>
>That said, I suggest that maybe we take a step back to understand *why*
>there is such difference in opinion (other than we all relish and learn
>from healthy intellectual debate). We might have better luck in
>reaching consensus on these causes rather than consensus of the
>'symptoms' per se.
>
>When looking at this issue, it appears to me that what we're really
>trying to reach consensus on is the key characteristics of these
>constructs/concepts. For example, I would argue that a key
>characteristic of a message is that it its role in *exchange*.
>Thus, it seems to me that we might be proverbially touching different
>parts of the same elephant with blindfolds on, essentially looking at
>the same thing but resonating more closely with certain characteristics.
>
>
>To add more fodder to the conversation, I would ask, is a message a
>message if it is not exchanged? In response, I looked for tangible
>examples outside of the technical realm for metaphors that would help
>the gap between these perspectives. For example, my husband and I are
>looking to purchase a home. When we found a property that we wanted, we
>put in a contract on that house. However, it was not a contract, in the
>legal sense of the word, until the seller accepted the terms of the
>contract and it became ratified. Thus, the critical characteristic of
>the contract would be ratification, or mutual acceptance of the terms.
>I would equate this to the view that the critical characteristic of a
>message is its exchange. Alternatively, one could take the position
>that a contract existed as soon as we completed the paperwork. Only its
>status or state changed (submitted, ratified, rejected, etc) changed as
>events occurred. I would equate this to the viewpoint that a message is
>a message even if not exchanged. Both perspectives are valid, but
>different - and have implications on the overall model we build.
>
>Perhaps heading toward consensus from this perspective will be more
>unifying than divisive?
>
>Rebekah
>
>
>
>>I would like to call for a vote on this too to put it to bed for once
>>
>>
>an
>
>
>>all. My assertion = If I architect something with a service, a
>>
>>
>consumer
>
>
>>does not have to be present for it to be "service oriented". Nor do
>>messages, networks, signals, pings, security, encryption etc etc.
>>
>>
>This
>
>
>>is much the same as stating that a "message" does not have to be sent
>>
>>
>in
>
>
>>order for it to be a "message". It can exist with or without being
>>transmitted.
>>
>>If we do go the way of the service provider and service consumer, this
>>could be done in an illustrative (non-normative) manner in the RM or
>>(and I favor this idea) as part of a reference architecture. 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 had hoped we could gain consensus on this and avoid a vote however I
>>feel a vote may be inevitable.
>>
>>BTW - has anyone else noticed that the list is very slow today? It
>>
>>
>took
>
>
>>5 hours for my last message to come back to me via this list?
>>
>>Duane
>>
>>
>
>
>
