Excellent idea. I've attached a white paper with some ideas for how to do
this. Not focused on CDSI in particular, but on processes for defining
standards and reference implementations in general. (01)
--
Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu (02)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "John Flynn" <jflynn@xxxxxxx>
To: "'common upper ontology working group'" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Flynn, John P.'" <john.flynn@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:45:36 -0500
Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] White Paper (03)
> Cory,
>
> A typical problem with government designed and managed architectures is that
> they have the potential to represent a lowest common denominator (LCD)
> approach in order to accommodate the interest of all the candidate
> participants. The resultant LCD architectures are so vague that they still
> allow many non-interoperable applications to be developed and almost always
> contain relatively easy to obtain provisions for exceptions. It seems that
> the one architectural standard that has best held up over a number of years,
> gracefully evolved and truly supported broad interoperability is the World
> Wide Web architecture. It was not designed or managed by the government.
> Also, it is not proprietary. So, it may be useful to focus on ways to extend
> the proven WWW model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the CDSI
> requirements before branching out to seriously consider other less tried and
> proven approaches.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:21 AM
> To: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'common upper ontology working group'
> Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper
>
> Brad,
> We have been thinking along similar lines but I submit the government has to
> own their architectures, only they have the cross-cutting view (or should
> have). Contractors can help build these, but the architecture asset (as the
> expression of the enterprise, enterprise needs and solutions - business or
> technical) has to be put into the acquisition cycle. Systems then need to
> be built to that architecture is an executable, testable way. Those
> architectures have to STOP being "for a system" and be "for the enterprise".
> SOA makes a great model for these architectures - separating concerns and
> providing the boundaries to build to. The semantic technologies can help
> here to join and bridge architectures, but you are absolutely correct that
> the core problem is not technical.
> -Cory
------- End of Original Message ------- (04)
Paving the Bare Spots.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (01)
|