Ah.
I think that now I see. When I read Ken’s original text, I replaced
“…reflect the business process…” with “…reflect <some> business
process” I can see how that would read to suggest that
SOA must always reflect a particular business process a la BPM. Agree
that is not the case. I was trying to tie the business process in the
second sentence back to the business process to which we referred in the phrase
“the specifics of a business process do not change the basic concepts as
described in the RM” while simultaneously not suggesting that there is
only 1 business process (“the business process”). I broke the
thought into two sentences because the first becomes very powerful in its own
right. Word selection got me on the second.
Thoughts?
Rebekah
Rebekah Metz
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
Voice: (703) 377-1471
Fax: (703)
902-3457
From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
6:01 PM
To: Metz Rebekah;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
I read
“ the
specific architecture that one designs and implements will reflect <some>
business process”
To infer that SOA will reflect business
processes.
Duane
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************
From: Metz
Rebekah [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
2:40 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Duane
–
I am not
reading the words below to suggest BPM as necessary. Can you point out
where the changed words between Ken’s original thought and my rewording
indicate BPM? It may help me to understand where word selection may cause
misinterpretation.
Rebekah
Rebekah Metz
Associate
Booz Allen
Hamilton
Voice:
(703) 377-1471
Fax:
(703) 902-3457
From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
5:34 PM
To: Metz Rebekah;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization
of SOA-RM Draft for Better
I
disagree. SOA does not need BPM nor will all SOA’s be used for BPM.
BPM is one of *many*
possible “things” that may use SOA as a base layer. Listing
only BPM infers some form of priority or preference. The SOA cannot see
nor should it care that BPM is there. TCP/IP is not aware of services or
BPM either but will likely be used in most implementations. It does not
state anywhere in the TCP/IP specs that TCP/IP implementations will reflect business
requirements or processes. Again – that is only one possible use of
many.
Duane
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************
From: Metz
Rebekah [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
1:16 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
How
about words such as “The specifics of a business
process do not change the basic SOA concepts as described in the RM. However,
the specific architecture that one designs and implements will reflect
<some> business process. Within this context, the architecture
should build upon specific service instances which correspond to the real world
effects that the business process hopes to realize.”
I thought that the W3C recognized that IT service (in
particular web service) interactions always occur via a virtual agent on both
sides of the interaction? Here we’re starting to get into the
notion that there are several ‘levels’ of critical entities within
a service interaction that all remain congruent to one another within the
course of a service interaction.
Rebekah
From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
3:06 PM
To: Ken Laskey; Goran Zugic; Matt
MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Comments
inline:
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************
From: Ken
Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
10:39 AM
To: Duane Nickull; Goran Zugic;
Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal:
Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
I think we need to add some words to the RM to capture
this discussion. We cover part of this in the beginning of Section 3.2.1
but need to be more specific that:
- a service consumer can be a human or a software agent;
DN:
given that we have scoped the RM for SOA to software architecture and it is
abstract, is this correct and relevant? How can a human interface with a
SOAP node? Since a human actor that invokes a service by using a SOAP
client is invisible to the service tier, it is probably not correct or relevant
as worded. I think I know what you are trying to say though.
- a service consumer can invoke any number of services (including a single
service in isolation) and can chain the output of some services to act as the
input of others;
DN: save
this thought for RA.
- from the perspective of a given service, the occurrence of such chaining
would not be visible;
DN:
agree
- the service consumer can be implementing a business process;
DN: or
an unbounded array of other options.
- the specific of a business process do not change the basic SOA concepts as
described in the RM; however, the specific architecture that one designs and
implements will reflect the business process and make use of specific service
instances that corresponds to the real world effects that the business process
hopes to realize.
DN:
concur.
Now that said, and in full appreciation that we agreed earlier that mechanisms
which combine services (e.g. choreography, orchestration) are out of scope, is
it sufficient for words, such as those suggested above, to be included
somewhere within the current discussion or do we need to pull it out into a
subsection on its own? As an example of the former, we tried to deal with
loose-coupling and coarse-grained with words at the end of Section 2.1.
DN: We used to have such words.
Are they out of the doc now?
D
