John,
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. We are concerned
with the architectures of the government, not architectures the
government imposes on others. The government, like any large
organization, is a system and parts of that system need to be designed.
Some parts need to be designed to work with other parts, good
architecture does that flexibly and without N**2 integration. These
architectures need to work together - architectures working together is
exactly what interoperability is, separately architected systems
(business or technology systems) coming together on common ground. "The
internet" does not "work together" in this way, it is technology
infrastructure. (01)
As for as tried and proven approaches, building solid architectures is
as about as proven as it gets. Common agreement in a community is
proven (also known as standards). Point to point interoperability is
also proven. We want to go beyond that, here we have some great
candidates but I don't see anything as proven. (02)
As far as LDC and fuzzy architectures, I agree completely. (03)
-Cory (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Flynn
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'; bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Flynn, John P.'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper (05)
Cory, (06)
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. (07)
John (08)
-----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 (09)
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|