RE: [soa-rm] On UML

["Smith, Martin" <Martin.Smith@DHS.GOV>]

+1

I know that I have had CIOs and business execs ask me for a "Dummy's
Guide to SOA" in the past few months.  Like enterprise architecture (or
home-building architecture), the key is to define a meaningful view of
the thing to the various types of participants in the overall project .
. .

I don't see the Dummy's Guide as the first deliverable, but I hope it's
in there someplace.


Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:33 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] On UML

Ken started an *excellent* list of questions that will help to flesh out
the SOA RM and our assumptions about it.  Based on that discussion
thread, the UML vs. mind-mapping discussions and the technical vs.
non-technical discussion, I suggest that we should first agree on *who*
the intended audiences of the reference model are?  Having a clear
definition of intended audience will direct the content, representation
and tone of the components/sections/portions of the reference model.  It
may also resolve the editorial approach discussions as well.

I don't believe that saying technical and non-technical audiences is
sufficient clarification.  There are several types of "techies" that all
require different types of information.  Are we distinguishing between
them?  For the non-technical, are we providing material only at the
executive primer level?  I know that when I first start exploring a
reference model or standard, I would find it tremendously useful to
understand what the target audience is and to frame the problem somewhat
before presenting the solution.

>