Rebekah Metz
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
Voice: (703) 377-1471
Fax: (703) 902-3457
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Prueitt
(ontologystream)
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:07 PM
To: 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'
Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo - Records Management Option
Nara
document management
http://www.archives.gov/era/rms
has long been something that I have had an interest in, since my design
of a
declassification engine (compliant to US EO 12958) in 1996. I
understand
that the current declassification engine is still based on this 1996
work,
at least in part.
A set of issues arises based on the questions related to;
why a document is to be moved
from one place to another.
The most obvious set of services is the set of informational resources
that
helps a human (or automatic process) decide if specific information is
to be
classified (kept classified) or not. Policy about this issue
comes from the
Executive Branch of government and is conditioned by laws passed by the
Congress and judgments made by the Judiciary. This policy
is mostly not
classified (according to the principles established by Constitutional
law in
the US).
[->]
Here’s what’s fascinating to me – within relatively short
order, the discussion of SOA and a particular demonstration of the applicability
of SOA concepts to this context is not primarily focused on the technology
aspects of the challenge. We have already recognized the inherent need to
identify and solve the leadership, governance, privacy, cultural, and legal challenges
to information sharing. SOA is largely about enabling information sharing, so
it is only natural that the context of any demonstration reflects these non-technical
challenges of information sharing.
Here is the issue that perhaps the group would like to consider (in the
context of Cory's suggestion that the SOA demo be designed to reflect
the
concerns of this document - now circulated).
Let us take an example. THE meaning of
"Agency_Offical_Name_Current" is to
be defined within various lines of business models (such as using BPEL
business process execution language). In fact a set of terms will
have
similar definition.
My group makes a distinction between the following
Services, web-services, service webs
Where "services" are defined outside of IT orientation, and
service webs are
naturally occurring social networks.
[->]
A question here:
1)
if “services” are defined outside of IT orientation, what are they
oriented toward?
When I
read this, I want to pull some threads together from earlier posts (without
actually yet reading the reference material). The distinction between
these terms seems to share a connection, perhaps a second or third order
connection. This connection is predicated on the primacy of social
networks – relationships and dependencies. For example, if web
services are to work together to provide a service, there must be some
awareness of that social network. Hence a link to service webs.
[->]
The core SOA methodology issue is about the reconciliation of meaning
applied to terms (managed vocabulary) within the relevant naturally
occurring service webs (social networks).
Is there a need for reconciliation of "semantics" within a
SOA deployment at
Nara?
Or can "semantics" be defined (by IT community) and imposed on Nara?
[->]
Why would semantics be defined by the IT community?
Services based on the Nara
document management activities has both an
internal and external set of interfaces (over which
"services" might be
defined and responded to). The internal interfaces (some have
suggested) are
"more complex" because there is less conformative pressure at
the individual
level. (Conflicts at the cultural level often have root causes
because of
reconciliation failures between individuals). [->]
[->]
How beautiful is this statement. Essentially, what I read from this
paragraph is that the same “lessons learned” will eventually be
recognized in technology evolution, much as they are in cultural and societal
evolution. While listening to an NPR newscast on globalization, I started
thinking about how the characteristics of economic globalization may in fact
also emerge in a truly service oriented technology system. But, I
digress..
"Meaning" thus has several simultaneous viewpoints.
Often these viewpoints
express opposing purposes.
I have long made the argument, often poorly, in the CIO Council
meetings;
that if "meaning" is too narrowly defined one builds
"service systems" that
have to be understood for how they are designed.
[->] Can you
elaborate a bit more on this for me?
So software designers may
create dysfunctionality if a service we wish to ask for, and are
legally
entitled to receive, is effectively not provided because of a
burdensome
hindrance.
[->]
Is the burdensome hindrance the narrow definition used to build service systems
or does the burdensome hindrance result from the overly narrow definition?
If this hindrance is foreseeable, then the software designers may place
themselves in legal bind.
Often this means an exclusion of not only "meaning"
express-able from other
viewpoints but also a violation of actual federal laws (reflecting the
primary Constitutional requirements for access to government services.
US Citizen access to US federal government services cannot be, by
federal
laws, unnecessarily or unreasonably hindered by the means through which
actual services are rendered. In many cases, restrictions of
access are
mandated by law. In many other case, access is mandated by
federal law.
Service architecture for Nara
must be sensitive to at least this
distinction, other wise violation of law will occur (by the computer
"system".) Hummm...
Web-services (expressed with a SOA) must have the following dimensions
1) re-use that is measured against community transparent utility
functions
2) agility measured as the ability to respond in novel circumstances,
and to
novel requests
3) governance that is open to inspection from stakeholders
4) commonality within a community or community of communities
[->]
Would this be commonality of need, capability, meaning or any/all of them?
5) competency that is measured at several levels including competency
expressed by individual capability and community capability[->] - i.e.
the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts. What a powerful
argument for dynamic composibility of capability to respond to novel and unanticipated
needs.
[->]
I really like these dimensions. I would suggest that any services
expressed as part of SOA must have these dimensions, but that these dimensions
really provide a litmus test of when a collection of web services == SOA.
Too often we see existing systems or information being “service enabled”
simply by generating WSDL from the existing code used to gain access to the
information. One of the key challenges is to get folks to understand why
that type of step != SOA. These challenges provide an excellent framework for
that discussion. May I use it elsewhere?
If the NARA
demo of SOA becomes narrowly defined without considering these
dimensions, then the IT effort might cause additional hindrance in how
citizens and government collaborate.
Conformance to existing federal law may break down.
The avenue towards a multi-level description of meaning may be through
a
synthesis of some aspects of knowledge management (KM) practices and
SOA
more broadly perceived.
[->]
Ultimately, (but not necessarily as part of the SOA Demo) I think we’ll
need to address all the dimensions of information sharing challenges....
|
COMMUNITY
|
Dimension
4
|
Dedication
throughout a community to overcome challenges to information sharing.
|
|
GOVERNANCE
|
Dimension
3
|
Agreements
upheld by all stakeholders to identify information and capabilities to share
(exchange).
|
|
PRIVACY
|
Dimension
5
|
Sharing
and dissemination protocols consistent with privacy laws and regulations
impacting all participating agencies.
|
|
CULTURE
|
Dimension
4,5
|
Overcoming
community and personnel concerns that prevent effective sharing.
|
|
TECHNOLOGY
|
Dimension
1,2
|
Leveraging
existing technology to integrate knowledge, consistent with the established
rules of governance.
|
|
LEGAL
|
Dimension
3,5
|
Navigate
the various laws and regulations impacting dissemination of sensitive and/or
case-specific information.
|
These are just some suggestions for the group to consider.
_________________________________________________________________
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