On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 15:44, Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Excellent article at (01)
I agree. Interesting solution. (02)
> It would seem that you, Cory, Andrew, Farrukh and Rex have positions
> (regarding registry and repository) that are very close and saying
> (for various good reasons) that ebXML should interoperate with UDDI
> because it can and because of the previous market adoption of UDDI.
> You are also saying (I conjecture) that there is no other
> “registry/data definition” standard that needs to be considered?
(03)
In my case, I've specifically stayed out of this discussion. We haven't
agreed a set of business requirements yet, so I'm not trying to
pre-suppose a technology solution. If the solution meets the
requirements, great. If more than one solution meets the requirements,
then we get to prove why they pay us to be System Architects. :) Either
way, it's all about the requirements. (04)
> As we will see, the core issue that is not talked about is how are
> data definitions created.
>
> Is there re-use, granularity, agility, composition?
>
> Where is the origin of design?
>
> Do IT community design the web-services or do a (perhaps) more full
> native stakeholder (non-IT business person, government policy maker,
> natural scientist) use a methodology to define natural needs and means
> to respond to a request for assistance?
>
> Is the demo you all are contemplating IT-centric, and/or does it
> really matter? (05)
These questions are directly related to the issues of data model
evolution I was talking about, but it attacks the more fundamental
causes of those issues. Ultimately, those designs must be created based
on data modeling with the business owners of the service to be provided.
While normally, a provider doesn't just launch a service into an SOA
environment without at least one requester (or, arguably, what's the
point), they are in control of defining their service interfaces. The
technology just realizes those interfaces in an (hopefully)
interoperable manner. (06)
Your last question goes back to Greg's point about demonstrating values
to the stakeholders of this whole effort. I think it can't be purely
technology focused, or those benefits aren't going to be as obvious as
they would be otherwise. If business people see their business
processes today working in software, they can more clearly see how it
will effect them, and how those communications between entities (people
or organizations providing the service) may be improved. (07)
> One may take the position that how data definitions (in the broadest
> scope) come about could be examined more carefully from a knowledge
> management type position (ie not a pure IT perspective … having more
> of a business centric methodology perspective – as in OASIS BCM 2004). (08)
This is the next document on my reading list... (09)
> This leads to the notion of a choice point, when the user is given an
> informed opportunity to make a decision based on (to a large extent)
> non-IT issues. Often this goes to the nature of purpose.
>
> Yes, the purpose of a web service can be defined, and in fact one can
> work hard to show some degree of agility, composition, re-use and
> granularity. But is there a common dimension to natural social
> interaction that is not present in the proposed demo?
>
> Is this important, if there is a difference? (010)
I hope I've answered these questions with my response above. I think
the social impact, and therefore the changes in interaction models, must
be part of this effort. (011)
> This is the service part of the SOA, where “service” is not sameAs
> “web-service”, but is in fact a naturally occurring interaction type
> between human and human communities. The choice points can be / are
> where the design of web services occur. I would suggest that ebXML
> does not fully realize this possibility. Perhaps this is where a new
> discussion, and OASIS specification needs to be focused. If so, then
> perhaps the mature part of KM should be referenced? (012)
To me, services are a function or process which do something meaningful;
some or all of it may be implemented in software, depending on the
granularity of the service. (013)
> We imagine that there might be some additional discussion, and if so
> perhaps just the topics might be of value; but not a detailed
> discussion? (014)
> One is about the very definition of “registry” and “repository”….
> Most know that there are non-standard variations to these technologies
> – some of them quite radically different. But this topic is off the
> table at least in the context of Federal US CIO Council discussions. (015)
But if we have a solution that meets whatever requirements we have and
that really works, how much does it matter what it's called? (016)
It may be important to how people think about it, so yes, we can argue
about the precise definition of "something that holds references to
things and makes those references available to others", but once we have
the set of requirements, we should know exactly how it will fit into the
overall solution. Am I missing something? (017)
ast
--
Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org. (018)
***************************************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any
review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this
message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies
thereof from your system.
***************************************************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|