It would be really great to understand why the SOA RM is a non-starter, there are bits I'd like to see in future in the standard, so it would be great to see what people think could be improved on, or the basic challenges.
But please remember that a definition needs to be non-technology specific. On 25/11/06, Anil John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<StefanTilkov> Too bad we have no agreed upon definition of SOA </StefanTilkov> <Gervas> No one anywhere in the known universe has yet come up with a definition of SOA which commands widespread acceptance. </Gervas> Would I be correct in my understanding that the OASIS SOA-RM Definition of SOA [1] is pretty much of a non-starter with this group (With the exception of Steve of course)? As such do you all see any value in building on top of it? For example, would you see folks from this group participating in the OASIS SOA RA (Reference Architecture) work, given that it is built on top of the RM? Regards, - Anil [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_SOA_Reference_Model :- :- Anil John :- http://www.aniltj.com/blog :-
