| To: | "Service-Oriented Architecture CoP" <soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| From: | "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 May 2006 16:22:15 -0600 |
| Message-id: | <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGCELKHHAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Is there
something that one can directly compare W* or Web 2.0 or what ever (is W* sameAs
Web 2.0) to the OASIS SOA RM?
Joe, in my
humble opinion, the links below have more information than one needs
(information about the author(s) and about his/their
opinions).
To the SOA
CoP...
OASIS SOA RM
is in my opinion complete adequate and sufficient for social transformations
that I am hoping to help.
As has been mentioned, the "phenomenon" of case based reasoning is vital to
causing the types of complicated cascades that are needed in a new type of computing and communication
. Computers need these cases
enumerated. Web-ontology is
doing this now days and doing it well, in a few
cases. Human
communication needs choice points (BCM standard) and measurements to test
when the cases are not adequate in a particular situation.
What most
miss is that human reasoning is constantly in touch with reality, what I and
others (Aldo de Moor) call the pragmatic
axis.
The OASIS SOA RM does not miss this, and yet most other
standards do miss this - particularly (the judgment can be made) W3C
standards. (Show me one that does, and I will be very happy to review
it.) The reason why this is a RM and not an architecture is to correct
architectures that have no or little reference capabilities to natural
processes. (Again, this means process models and really alignment to real
temporal events.) This is a call for a principled discussion if someone
feels slighted by a slight critic of W3C.
The issue is clarity of the standards, and fidelity to
the natural processes that the standards should be helping us model and assist
ourselves and others with "web services". Yes?
This is where
an alignment with the OASIS SOA-RM is necessary, because this RM is correct (in
the context I am speaking) and because of the break through (conceptually)
within the leadership (some of it) of the Federal CIO Council, in this
context. We feel that more than
any other thing, other than an
awareness of n-ary ontology and Ontology referential bases, this alignment to
the OASIS RM has the greatest merit.
Stakeholders will understand this
alignment, but we need to demonstrate
that we have mastered this RM
and understand how to do web service
architectures within the scope of the RM.
In my mind, not having seen all standards, for
me.....The SOA-RM, the FERA (Federated Enterprise Reference Architecture) and
the following other standards
complete a * cover over the high level standards the federal government should
adopt.
SOA-IM
(Information Model)
SOA-CS
(Collaborative Services)
BCM (Business
Centric Methodology) adopted at OASIS in April 2006.
ebXML
(electronic business XML) strongly supported by SUN and reasonably
good.
* by cover, I
mean that all of the issues are taken care of at one level (in this case
the high level cover is a conceptual cover).
Paul Prueitt
_________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/ Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (01) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web 2.0, Chiusano Joseph |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web 2.0, Chiusano Joseph |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web 2.0, Chiusano Joseph |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web 2.0, Chiusano Joseph |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |