Tim,
Matt was simply responding to Sally's
point:
<Quote>
This is creating a Reference
Model from the bottom up. I believe a Reference Model should reflect a top down
approach.
</Quote>
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: MATHEWS, Tim [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Matt
MacKenzie; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
"Componentization"
Matt - I am not sure what point you are trying to make by
this? I agree with your premise of a bottom up effort, as this was one
of the operating assumptions that was made from the
beginning.
But, I am confident it is the business environment that is
independent from the reference model.
TM
From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:58 AM
To: Sally St.
Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
"Componentization"
Sally,
A reference model
actually needs to be a bottom up effort. We leave the ever so popular
“top-down” approach to folks like ebSOA J
We’re creating a
vocabulary and general understanding of what I hope we can call a discipline
of computer science in the future. This means, we need a durable
reference model that is not dependent on the current business
environment.
-matt
From: Sally
St. Amand [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:19
AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
"Componentization"
Frank
This is in response to your request on last week’s
conference call, if anyone has comments speak now. I also think that the
recent comments on clarifying sections are a reflection of my issues with the
specification.
I agree with the majority of points made/described in
ver 10. My issues are with what is not in this draft. Based on Fig 1 the Refe!
rence Model is guided by Reference Architectures, Concrete Architectures,
Profile & Related Models. They in turn account for requirements,
motivation & goals. This is creating a Reference Model from the bottom up.
I believe a Reference Model should reflect a top down
approach.
The Reference Model needs to reflect the environment,
the strategy and the priorities of the business/mission/collaboration.
This will impact the construction of services. A service is a business task or
activity that is realized through technology. The draft does a good job of
describing how that realization happens. But it doesn’t provide a sufficient
link between processes and services. The draft makes the point that the
central focus of! SOA is the task of business function—getting something
done. A business process is made up of tasks and activities to achieve a
goal (getting something done). The
concept of creating the service from the tasks and activities in a
process is important. For example, where on the continuum of fine grained to
coarse grained should a particular service be; this will affect interaction,
reusability. The relationship between processes and services needs to be in
the Reference Model.
While I saw that there is a note saying the glossary
is still in flux, since one of the objective of the Reference Model is a
vocabulary, having less in the glossary might be a better option. Is semantic
integration a guiding principle of SOA?
With respect to conformance there needs to be business
results. That is an SOA should provide demonstrable mission accomplishments,
e.g. ROI, match a competitors distribution channel. SOA is not a technology.
Conformance should provide operational accomplishments, these should be
measurable.
Sally
!
