RE: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from Everware-CBDi on "In Search of a Common SOA Language"

Title: Re: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from Everware-CBDi on "n Search of a Common SOA Language"

In re-reading my last email, I may have unintentionally 
focused on the existence of multiple players in the Reference Model 
Landscape.  I agree that the RM, or any model, provides a point of 
reference for discussion.  In fact, I think that the CBDI analysis is 
valuable so that we, as a community, can understand where/how different efforts 
relate to one another.  I've read the report several times over the 
weekend and found the summary of key definitions from in each model quite 
useful.   

 

However, in reading through the section entitled 
'Differences among the Reference Models,' the 'verdict' for 
each fundamental concept seems to waiver between Reference Architecture and 
Reference Model as a point of comparison.  I wonder if it 
might not be beneficial to others who are trying to understand the essence of 
Service Oriented Architecture to see how the the relative strengths and 
weaknesses of a Reference Model vs.. a Reference Architecture differ?  

 

From this perspective, a key strength of the SOA-RM is how 
it encourage both the business and technology side to move toward a common basis 
of understanding - independently of the mechanisms used to implement.  

From: Duane Nickull 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:39 
PM
To: Metz, Rebekah; ; Dave 
Mayo
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] "Industry Analysis Report" from 
Everware-CBDi on "n Search of a Common SOA Language"

  

Rebekah et al:

I think if anything, the CBDI 
  article may have misstated the intent.  David Mayo was at the event in VA 
  earlier this week and is aware of the Reference model.  Lawrence Wilkes 
  is of course a member of the TC too and has said kind things about the 
  RM.

The Reference Model was never intended to the the singular point of 
  reference that the entire industry had to agree with, but it does give them a 
  point of reference.  As such, I think the article tries to balance the 
  model with other work to see where alignment is (although I have to state I 
  have not read it).

Dave – anything to add?

Duane

On 
  1/26/07 6:21 AM, "Metz, Rebekah" <> 
  wrote:

  SOA-RM'ers:
I receive the monthly newsletter from 
    CBDi and usually find much useful and insightful information.  I was 
    disappointed to receive this month's newsletter with the following headline 
    "in Search of a Common SOA Language."  The article starts out with "we 
    believe that a widely accepted reference model for SOA will accelerate the 
    take up of SOA, since tool vendors and practitioners will have a more solid 
    and common base to work from." 

As part of the reference model 
    landscape, the following sources were analyzed: 
W3C Web Services 
    Architecture
OASIS SOA-Reference Model
IBM UML 2.0 Profile for 
    Software Services
OpenGroup Open SOA Ontology
UK Ministry of Defence 
    Ministry of Defence Architectural Framework Metamodel
Everware-CBDi "A 
    Meta Model for Service Architecture and Engineering"

I'm working 
    through the article in a bit more depth today....but would welcome a 
    discussion on this list on the validity of the strengths and weaknesses that 
    were identified. 

The full article can be found at:  http://www.cbdiforum.com/bronze/journal/2007-01/in_search_common_soa_language.php

Rebekah 
    

-- 
  
**********************************************************
Sr. 
  Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. 
            *
Chair - OASIS 
  SOA Reference Model Technical Committee    *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com 
                     *
Music: 
  http://www.mix2r.com/audio/by/artist/duane_nickull*
**********************************************************