Thanks. The last few emails have been very constructive and clarified
what we want to address where. I am Ok with what you have proposed (next
steps).
Thanks,
/Prasanta
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 12:31 PM
Cc: SOA-RM
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service Consumer in RM or not?
Behera, Prasanta wrote:
> For my understanding I too would like to understand why SC should not
> be part of RM (it may not be but I would like to understand).
>
Prasanta:
The answer lies in the nature of Reference models. If we place SC in
the model, then we need to also include the infrastructure to connect
the SC to the service. This means that it would not longer be a model
but an architecture. The same exists for the community concept. If we
make a model of a community, it becomes architecture by virtue of the
fact that it requires an infrastructure to connet the membetrs of the
community.
Infrastructure is definitely a go in RA, just not RM.
The source of the confusion over all of this appears to be centered
around that fact that architecture = architecture, RM = RM but when we
make a RM for * Architecture, the lines of distinction blur. While it
is tempting to change the name to be SO RM, we may lose the people who
are thinking of SOA. Michael and Rebekah's posts are right on the point
here. If SOA was the name, not an acronym, our problems would probably
be solved.
Duane
