Colleagues, (01)
Pardon my belated reply. Our group is concentrating on other
opportunities at this time, including a possible demonstration of the
pilot project at the Joint ITU-T/ OASIS Workshop and Demonstration
of Advances in ICT Standards for Public Warning, Geneva, 19-20
October 2006. (02)
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/ictspw/index.html (03)
Since some of the participants in our collaboratory will be attending
this event, it was not feasible for us to mount a second effort in
the same preparatory time frame in order for us to participate in
this second SOA for E-Government Conference. (04)
Here is a link to the presentation we gave. (05)
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SOACoP/2006_05_2324/RBrooks05222006.ppt (06)
Unfortunately, we did not record, nor would a recording adequately
show the implementation demonstration of the alerting network which
was also conducted as part of the first SOA for E-Government
Conference. (07)
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?FourthSemanticInteroperabilityforEGovernmentConference_2006_2_0910#nid31LS (08)
We realize this is not the same as rigorous write-up of scientific
experiment, however, we are focused on the implementation of rapid
first response more than SOA per se, though several of us also
participate in the OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee. We
all have our limitations, and these are the choices we have made. (09)
Also, we are actively pursuing a course that will put the pilot
prototype network, Web Services Registry for the domains of Emergency
Management and Health Informatics, applications, and other
participant services of the collaboratory group into operational
production status. (010)
Thanks for the interest, and we hope to have more time available for
a third SOA for E-Goverment Conference. (011)
Wishing you all the best,
Rex (012)
At 2:29 PM -0600 9/23/06, Paul S Prueitt wrote:
>I understand that a consensus process is occurring, and that maybe
>over time this process may produce deep and satisfactory
>demonstrations of a SOA paradigm that is now several years old.
>
>The evidence is, however, that essential natural principles related
>to response to novelty are simply ignored, and that the CIO Council
>lead consensus is not directed at building the highest quality SOA
>demonstration, but rather in supporting IT vendors' marketing of
>outdated technology.
>
>The problem is in regards to the assertions and assumptions of that
><small> part of the social world.
>
>This small part of the social world are those IT vendors that are
>able to participate in the consensus process that you are referring
>to.
>
>I have made the case, as have others, that the CIO Council mediated
>consensus is not truly open due to pragmatic issues related to
>expenditure of time and resources. Not everyone has the over head
>budgets to support efforts. Small innovators are excluded, and
>large IT vendors are vested in the status quo.
>
>Again, the notion that vendors using the current IT procurement
>models are the only one that are in a position to follow and
>participate in the current US Federal CIO Council endorsed SOA demo
>developments.
>
>The alternative is that the government, say the CIO Council,
>would NOT require that this process of evaluation of the SOA
>paradigm be made by volunteers, who come only from the IT vendor
>community. One could have a National Project to reground IT in
>natural science:
>
><http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm>http://www..bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm
><http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm>http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm
>
>
>or
>
>one of the national labs could easily take on the development of SOA
>infrastructure that was more richly informed by disciplines such as
>social network theory and human computer interface design.
>
>Some claim that IF the government would regard web-service
>infrastructure development as a responsibility, then huge savings
>would occur over what is now expected. I am willing to lead a
>(funded) process that investigates this claim.
>
>A web-service infrastructure developed by deep innovation and
>simplification of the current mess could be compared to the buzzing
>confusion that has developed because for example:
>
>1) the W3C continuing insistence on RDF/OWL over Topic Maps creates
>deep barriers to actually using ontology as a means to meditate the
>service discovery and service fulfillment orchestration processes.
>The non-development of "n"-ary ontology representation is placed in
>concrete as long as the IT vendors will not even allow reasonable
>Topic Map development.
>
>2) in spite of language that promises open data interoperability,
>government IT contractors are vested in competitive advantages that
>are directly related to the degree in which IT contractors are able
>to make web-services non-interoperable. So we have a structural
>problem seen in terms of motivation and re-enforcement; we
>re-enforce non-solutions.
>
>3) the deeper elements of a second school of information science
>(<http://www.secondschool.net>www.secondschool.net) cannot be
>brought into a vendor produced SOA infrastructure, simply because
>the notion (as you mention) of "basic functionality" actually builds
>protection to a failed and failing government IT procurement
>process, that has been instituted as a matter of federal law.
>
>4) because it is in the self interest of the IT vendor community,
>the IT vendor community build a business centric orientation, not a
>event centric orientation.
>
>Lines of Business (LOB) and social activity supporting good
>government are not even closely aligned, as as a result the
>exclusion of emerging social activity in emergency response is being
>forced away from the event space. This instrumentation of LOB and
>the exclusion of social response to crisis has to be questioned, (as
>it has been in the recent hurricane responses) now or in the future
>when the political axis moves away from the assertions of the
>current Administration.
>
>The issue just raised over the past several days of "core" service
>definitions and "fluid edge" is one that is not addressed in any of
>the current demos.
>
>The question that needs to be examined, for the Congressional
>record, is the degree to which current activities have been
>rightfully questioned and government responses made to ignore these
>rightful questions. This process of ignoring has legal
>consequences.
>
>Dr Paul S Prueitt
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:05 PM
>To: '[planning for soa-demo]'
>Cc: 'Thomas Erl'; 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Niemann. Brand'
>Subject: Re: [soa-demo] Ourcome metics on the SOA demos
>
>Paul,
>Based on the consensus reached the demo we are focusing on is a
>line-of-business integration between HR, Finance and program
>management to track human resources costs for projects. The
>consensus is to get this basic functionality up and running. Once
>done there are various additional capabilities and scenarios that
>could be put against it - for example one where an LOB service
>center is wiped out or one where project resources had to be
>reallocated due to an emergency. Other examples could be bringing a
>new service on line that utilizes the existing ones (perhaps an
>emergent or dynamically defined service) - the options are endless.
>>From the perspective on enabling the federal transition framework
>the current direction shows a lot of value - the integration of
>loosely coupled organizations to achieve shared business services.
> The way to actually do a LOB architecture is still up in the air,
>so we think it is a very viable starting point to showcase SOA.
>
>As far as I know there is no further development being done on Rex's
>emergency response demo - but perhaps you should contact that group
>to find out.
>
>-Cory
>
>From: soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul S Prueitt
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 1:00 PM
>To: [planning for soa-demo]
>Cc: Thomas Erl; David RR Webber (XML); Niemann. Brand
>Subject: Re: [soa-demo] Ourcome metics on the SOA demos
>
>Is there a wiki page for the Emergency Response Demo, particularily
>a page or number of pages that gives the kind of detail that one
>would expect eventually would be developed?
>
>In particular, there may be a detailed scenario description and the
>list of all services, with standard formate for convaying
>specificdata objects between processes.
>
>There may be a published standard for core data objects, a registry
>and repository of service definitions, as well as demonstration of
>service discovery and the orchestration of service responses.
>
>I have to admit that I have not followed the demo development for
>months. The demo discussions and processes started (May, 2006?)
>
>What I was interested in was how service discovery would be
>developed. If, in an emergency, required services are not
>available from a standard set of data objects and interfaces, how
>would a required service (one that was not in the standard core but
>absolutely necessary in the emergery response) be
>identified/measured.
>
>The OASIS BCM (business centric methdology) and SOA Blueprints
>specifications have a process model for the aggregation of new
>service defintion in real time. Was this process model used in the
>Emergency Response demo, and if not how are the issue of novelty
>addressed?
>
>I approach the modeling of event space using the notion of natural
>category. As recently suggested, there are two types of natural
>category, natural category that is stable and natural category that
>emerges as part of natural processes.
>
>Services may be defined as transactions in a natural category space,
>where the transactions have charaterisitic event chains.
>Web-services and "natural services" then are reflections of each
>other; sometimes these reflections have high fidality and sometimes
>they do not.
>
>Does any of the demos specifically address the issue of fidality, or
>of outcome metrics on the usefulness of a service specification?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:soa-demo-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:19 AM
>To: soa-demo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [soa-demo] Writing the SOA demo spec
>SOA Demo Team,
>I have started writing into the SOA demo spec located here:
><http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SoaLobDemoSpec>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SoaLobDemoSpec
>
>Please take a look at it and consider contributing along the lines
>we have discussed. We should be able to develop a good deal of the
>specification on the Wiki - all you need do is register for the wiki
>and make updates. If there are open questions or controversial
>parts please discuss it on the mail list prior to changing the spec.
>
>We also need to start work on the technical considerations -
>registry and web service details. Lets try and get "hello world"
>running very soon.
>
>Regards,
>Cory Casanave
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/soa-demo/
>To Post: mailto:soa-demo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-demo/
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa-demo/
>Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
>Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (013)
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309 (014)
________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/soa-demo/
To Post: mailto:soa-demo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-demo/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa-demo/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (015)
|