The first step should not be about the business requirements. It should be
about shifting the origin of design over information structure to not IT
centric professionals and everyday humans. The IT business will be rewarded
still, it is just a question of who is in control. (01)
This means bringing knowledge management practices from collaborative spaces
like weblogs and virtual communities (which are older than the URL (1991)). (02)
The Business Centric Methodology (BCM) is discussed at: (03)
www.businesscentricmethodology.com (04)
I found it late and feel fortunate that David and others advanced this
starting in 2003. (05)
My work brings together a number of other people's work (as discussed in the
BCNGroup Roadmap) to provide a (06)
1) measurement of the conceptualization of individuals (as in a conceptual
(semantic extraction) process from the written text in weblogs) as
discussed at
http://www.ontologystream.com/area1/MemeticOntology/mappingSocialSymbols.htm
the conceptualization could be by UML, OWL, Topic Maps or any other means
including simple expository text or story telling. (07)
2) this individual conceptualization corresponds to the bottom of four
layers of the BCM specification (08)
3) the individual conceptualizations are then aggregated (and this was
specified in the Roadmap and will be refined and specified in the Community
Centric Service Methodology specification) into a "community" viewpoint. (09)
The key is the notion of a choice point, and this is where the design of
information structure (so called "semantics") needs to occur... not at first
by the information engineers. (This is the difference in approach to SOA
that we are integrating). Let us demo that. (smiles) (010)
I note the excellent work on RM-ODP
http://www.lcc.uma.es/~av/wodpec2005/papers/3-multiview.pdf
where view and viewpoint are separated so that viewpoint has the power to be
different from other viewpoints. (011)
I also note the excellent work at Rosenett and at CoreTalk. (012)
The work on the "Pragmatic Web" is excellent: (013)
http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/staff/ademoor/papers/iccs05_demoor.pdf (014)
this point of view is "second school", in my opinion. (Smiles) (015)
the other two BCM layers are for "extension" and "implementation". This is
where OMG and other business groups should be working - but unless the first
two layers are done (outside of their control) then the complete BCM is not
done right (again, in my opinion). If the other two layers are done then
more than sufficient work will exist for OMG members (if they are willing to
refactor what they have been doing so that ordering is correct). (016)
The issue is where the origin of design occurs. (017)
The notion that the first thing is to focus on business requirements misses
the point entirely. One cannot know the useful things that business might
do to serve the public good if the business is too business oriented? The
monkey whose hand is in the cookie jar is a good metaphor. (018)
The suggestion is that this business centricness and in particular the
IT-business-centricness over exploits the market and as a consequence we all
suffer with dysfunctional IT systems (ie no interoperability, no agility, no
reuse, no service). (019)
The alternative that is being set up with the new (Community Centric Service
Methodology) initiatives is that SOA be seen as supporting a mapping of the
transaction spaces FIRST, and then let the businesses serve the public.
(smiles.) (020)
Many are willing to do this, what we have not had is leadership. (021)
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew S. Townley
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:12 PM
To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Next level (022)
Hi Paul, (023)
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 22:35, Paul S Prueitt wrote:
> This difficulty might be by-passed with a second school approach ... but
> this comment is theory until proven.
>
>
> In a perfect world origin of design delegated to the current IT community
> would not work because of the capacity of the modeling approach (ie UML
> type)
>
> If we move to OWL type modeling the situation is remarkably better, and
> perhaps (following the lead of BioPAX - as I have pointed out before)
> PERHAPS SOA with ontology mediated orchestration and service discovery
might
> be demonstrable (but is there anyone here that feels they have the ability
> to demo that SOA capacity?) Top Quadrant could do it if they spent the
> required resources ... (I guess). (024)
I'm hip for trying new things, but I know that I'm only beginning to
understand where you're going with the whole ontology and Knowledge
Management. I feel like I'm trying to read something where most of the
letters have been rubbed out at times... I don't have the ability to do
what you are suggesting. I can only do the best I can do. I think in
either the approach you mention or what I'm trying to suggest, the most
important thing is: (025)
start from the business requirements (026)
After that, you can attack the implementation in whatever way makes
sense. (027)
> I apologize because my comments are (in fact) disruptive of what would be
> occurring otherwise, but I just feel that industry has many examples of
> shallow SOA implementation which do not address "any" of the core
knowledge
> elicitation and knowledge management issues - as is done in the OASIS BCM
> specification.
>
> It is not, in my opinion, that we can not move forward with something new;
> but that we are not moving forward with something new.
>
>
> How do we move forward rather than idling? (028)
Is there a way that you think the BCM specification as you understand it
can be applied to the business requirements? If there is, maybe
yourself and David can help us understand how it could be done. Having
read the specification, I think it covers a lot of ground, but, like
most things, until you actually see it work, it's sometimes difficult to
get your head around it. (029)
I had the same issue with the IEEE 1471-2000 specification. Then I saw
a couple of approaches to it, and now, I think it's great. I thought it
had potential before, but now I understand it and how it can be applied
to solve real problems. (030)
Whatever we do, we need to think about what is realistic within the
timescales we have. I don't know the answer to this, but I know from
observation that there are some really smart people receiving these
emails. Maybe collectively we can figure it out. (031)
ast (032)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (033)
|