I'd say that they are not conflicting but that the RM is really defining what SO is and what an SOA would look like. What it isn't doing is saying HOW to build a SOA hence the reason it isn't focusing on the architectural style element.
This still makes it a model for SOA but it doesn't make it a methodology for SOA. It is methodologies for SOA that should talk about it being a style rather than the model which is what things can be compared against. Eric, in terms of fundamentally flawed (as a reference model) I have to disagree (clearly). The basic principles of service orientation are pretty simple, and therefore powerful, which is what I feel the RM captures, and I've certainly not seen a better definition from anywhere else. Steve 2008/5/27 Karandikar,Amit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree Eric. So can anyone tell me why "architecture style" was not > included in the OASIS definition in the first place? We all agree on that, > yet the standards document does not state this explicitly. Its hard to tell > people that its an architectural style and also have them read the OASIS RM > - its essentially conflicting information. > > - Amit > > If you are not the intended recipient of this message (including > attachments), or if you have received this message in error, immediately > notify us and delete it and any attachments. If you no longer wish to > receive e-mail from Edward Jones, please send this request to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] You must include the e-mail address that you wish > not to receive e-mail communications. For important additional information > related to this e-mail, visit www.edwardjones.com/US_email_disclosure > > ________________________________ > > From: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric > Newcomer > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:33 AM > To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Definition of SOA > > I am with Stefan on this one - the OASIS document is fundamentally flawed. > It refers to SOA as a "paradigm" which it is not. SO may be a paradigm, but > SOA is an approach, or a style of design. > > > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:05:08 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Definition of SOA > > OASIS SOA Reference Architecture is now available in the Public Review Draft > 1 version (on the OASIS Home Page). It's gathered a positive feedback > already and I do not see any reasons why it would not become a standard > soon. > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@ innoq.com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:00:09 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Definition of SOA > > On May 26, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael Poulin wrote: > >> Why we have to be original when we have SOA standards already? > > "SOA standards"? I'm only aware of the OASIS RM (and I'm not the only > one who's not a fan). Are there others? > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq. com/blog/ st/ > > >
