[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo - Records Management Option

To: "'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'" <soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion' <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Cory Casanave" <cbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:52:48 -0400
Message-id: <011901c65818$f7fd9b90$0600a8c0@cbcpc>
The RM-Community moving to the standards phase with OMG started last Friday
in a short meeting.  Who the OMG participants are has not even been
established - it is an open process.  The OMG is defined by those who
participate.  The forming group is just starting the process of writing the
RFP for the specification.
As for the IT focus, there was brief discussion on business-focused model
Vs. a system focused model (CIM and PIM in OMG speak, respectively).  I am
one of those very much in favor of a business focused specification that
drills-down to a system specification - but even this has not yet been
The "powers that be" in this domain are the government agencies that
collaborated to produce the published specification and their system
vendors.  The idea that records management is not a "system" but is a set of
collaborative services is a BIG STEP and represents change in the
perspective and status-quo.  
We are at the very start of this process.
-Cory    (01)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:39 PM
> To: 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'
> Cc: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo - Records Management Option
> Cory,
> We see the wisdom in taking a measured response in defining demonstrations
> of near term capabilities from the SOA vendors.
> BUT.....  the federal government is not making a strong effort here to
> create new systems based on something other than what it has been funding
> in
> the past.  (?)   I understand that there is a comfort level with the IT
> systems the government has acquired in the recent past.  So I see no
> problem
> here.
> The assumption (it seems) is that OMG participants have already gotten the
> contracts tied down.  Maybe that is ok, maybe that is what the federal
> government intends.
> To what extend will a no - IT centric viewpoint be made in the RFP?  I
> cannot see any promise in this direction.
> We are considering a submission to the May 23-24 conference
> SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture) Community of Practice (CoP) and
> Service-Oriented Architectures for E-Government Conference, May 23-24,
> 2006
> See http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SOAforEGovernment_2006_05_2324
> where existing COTS products (from the KM world) can be reviewed in the
> context of KM driven SOA requirements in the federal space.
> BCNGroup is reviewing this technology in the context of wiki and portals
> (as
> well as mainstream KM as might be applied to SOA deployments).
> Our problem is in how the Powers That Be (and I guess we have to point to
> you and OMG as being sameAs PTB ) sees what is on the horizon or not.
> Does the horizon ever move for the PTB?  In twenty years I have seen very
> little movement on this horizon.
> Let me ask the forum if anyone would like to form a sub-committee, or
> TC, to gather together some representation of the KM practice potential
> contribution to a SOA RFP for NARA.  An OASIS specification of
> KM-orientation for SOA might be useful in 12 to 18 months.
> If there is no interest we will drop the discussion at least here.  (I am
> on
> travel all of tomorrow) and will see who might be interested on Thursday.
> psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On April 7th, my group will talk about a submission or one or more papers
> on
> the KM aspects of SOA - specific to NARA as well as to the May 23-24
> conference.
> NARA and Health care document management do have an intersection - one
> would
> assume.  But the deeper semantics (purposes) of NARA and of Health care
> governance have many differences.
> David,
> It is snowing here in Montreal and yes I have an umbrella.  (smiles)
> You said:
> " I much prefer the secure document model enshrined in the IHE/XDS
> Registry
> work in tandem with NIST.
> And this is open source work.  The focus is healthcare but the model I'm
> sure translates to other domains.
> The design document is available here:
> http://healthcare.xml.org/resources/IHE_ITI_Cross-
> enterprise_Doc_Sharing_200
> 4_08-15.pdf"
> <end quote>
> I understand the several points you are making.
> The NARA RFP is not really going to be open source nor even publicly
> visible.
> It is difficult to know how to feel about this.  I would like to see a KM
> orientation to SOA implementation methodology in general; and we see the
> OASIS BCM specification as being "as close as anyone has been allowed to
> come" towards a KM type SOA methodology.
> Over the next 30 days we will be talking about a specific contribution to
> BCM (business centric methodology) "choice points", "conceptualization
> visualization and aggregation" and "social networks"... all which we feel
> is
> highly relevant to not IT centric SOA.
> I remember the past distinction made here:
>       Is SOA about "architecture" or about "service".
> Perhaps this is where the world is turned up-side down?
> 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    (02)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>