Paul,
I think a more future focused SOA forum (and associated demos) would be very
interesting. This could focus on both the possible technical capabilities
like you expressed as well as the strategic business needs & opportunities. (01)
There are some things I suspect are "just over" the horizon that could have
huge benefit, including the proper synthesis of SOA, Semantic and Model
Driven approaches.
As for this thread, I think we have worn people out on this list, let's keep
it within the strategic horizon.
-Cory Casanave (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul S Prueitt
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:59 AM
> To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
> Cc: Tim Berners-Lee; David RR Webber (XML)
> Subject: [soa-forum] proposed futures of SOA wiki and forum
>
>
> Over the past two months, there has been a vetting of the issues, in a
> most
> complete fashion in the CIO Council's SOA CoP e-forum.
>
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
>
> The core assumption that we, forum members, make is that the marketplace
> already has SOA deployment examples, from which the SOA CoP would like to
> stand up a transparent and simple example, so as to make clear SOA
> (Service
> Oriented Architecture) principles.
>
> But in real life, SOA principles vary and the variations lead into
> technology dependant implementations. Once dependant on a specific
> technology/standard or a specific specification then it is often the case
> that government interest in a specific technology/standard will have, de
> facto, selected a winner. Historical evidence may be that RDF/OWL was so
> selected over Topic Maps (in the period 1999 - 2001).
>
> However, our forum (SAO CoP) has properly vetted the issue of fairness to
> alternatives. (I claim.)
>
> The participants of the SOA CoP forum understands our core assumption
> about
> (US federal) government interest in a common, simnple example/demostration
> of SOA principles. There is a recomendation (copied below) that an
> agreement be made that the simplest SOA be specified so that that
> specification can be demonstrated/simulated. I second that recomendation.
>
>
>
> A demo should be developed in accordance with your suggestions (as you
> have
> the greatest understanding of these active in this discussion, with valued
> input from Andrew and Joe.)
>
>
>
>
> Additional recomendation:
>
> I suggest, on behalf of myself and others, that a SOA CoP subcommittee
> also
> be formed with the mission to map out the possible future developments in
> the SOA and ontology mediated SOA domains. This subcommittee should have
> a
> separate forum and should be futures oriented.
>
> The "futures of SOA" forum would focus on "beyond the horizon" efforts....
> and would be supported by a wiki.
>
> We propose that the Federal (US) CIO Council provide (1) a wiki, (2)
> visibility to the forum, (3) exposure to results (presentations) developed
> by forum groups; so that we might be able to develop a forward looking
> exposure of what is "next".
>
> Valid topics would be
>
> 1) SOA implementation methodology
> 2) compatibility between standards supporting SOA
> 3) XML acceleration techniques, marshaling and un-marshaling techniques
> 4) ontology interface to orchestration and service discovery
> 5) community and individual visualization of conceptualization of service
> webs
>
>
>
> In a standad e-forum, such as this one (SOA CoP), it is difficult to
> preserve the knowledge exchanged by individuals, but the wiki resource
> could
> do this.
>
> Several members, of the SOA CoP forum, have been working on a wiki
> architecture that starts out by seeding a "shell" wiki with a set of
> phrases/terms and then allowing members to make modifications to the
> information on each page. Alternative viewpoints could be exposed along
> with the mainstream viewpoints. A core team would have editing capability
> until the wiki is stable, and then the wiki is made available for open
> editing.
>
> (A spec on this wiki based conceptualization of a domain of discourse is
> being prepared.)
>
> If we can agree to the OASIS BCM as the fondational methdology standard,
> this would be helpful. But comments and viewpoints regarding BCM should
> be
> asked for and discussed.
>
> www.businesscentricmethodology.com
>
>
> The OASIS TC working on a SOA methodology (Business Centric Methodology)
> produced a model having four layers, the bottom one being
> "conceptualization". A CIO Council sponsored "futures of SOA" wiki could
> have as its mission the development of the community conceptualizations
> about SOA, now and into the future.
>
> This might be done with less effort than in producing a demo, and when
> done
> in parallel to producing a demo would allow the community (the federal
> space
> in particular) to see the demo and to also see the first part of a
> methodology guiding
>
> 1) conceptualization
> 2) the formation of a common substrate for description of "services"
> within
> a community
> 3) the issues related to "extension" from some existing "service web" to
> new
> or other "service webs"
> 4) the (finally) informed implementation efforts needed for extending or
> establishing for the first time membership within an evolving and dynamic
> "service web".
>
>
> So in summary: I do not feel a need to question the specifics of any demo
> that the active participants of the SOA CoP forum wish to define. The
> issues
> have been fully vetted.
>
> I am proposing that the CIO Council sponsor and give exposure to a
> "futures
> of SOA: eforum AND wiki.
>
>
>
> this email is posted also at:
>
> http://www.secondschool.net/beads/communityCentric/home.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:28 AM
> To: 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Next level
>
>
> Paul,
> One of the business requirements I would assert for the demo is that;
> * participating in the community should have minimal entry barrier.
> If we require an approach and technology that is to far out of the
> mainstream, regardless of how interesting, that barrier is high.
> Interestingly this is true even for an approach that may be intended to
> lower that barrier should it become popular (which is how I would
> characterize your recommendation). As you know form other threads, I also
> have an interest in some of these other approaches (including ontologies)
> but don't see it as appropriate as a REQUIRED element for the demo.
>
> My hope for the demo is that we could get participation of application
> users
> or vendors - say SAP or Oracle. They would be able to look at the demo
> spec
> and immediately see they could provide the integration points into their
> application and "play". This, today, means that it would be best to
> utilize
> something very close to ws-* as the integration technology and not REQUIRE
> anything "to far" outside their experience and current technical
> capabilities. While this is somewhat subjective as you suggest, I think we
> all have a reasonable idea of where that line is.
>
> Note that I am not that much of a fan of ws-* and have no vested interest
> in
> it (I have more vested interest in being technology independent). My
> interest in ws-* is that it has become supported by most systems. Using
> WS
> as the technology platform is purely a conclusion based on the hat I am
> wearing of trying to get a compelling SOA demo going that will attract
> other
> participants and interest business stakeholders. It is also a conclusion
> that will most probably be reached by someone sponsoring a real community.
>
> The same is true of the MDA approach, it should not be required. There
> should be (and will be) a set of technology specific artifacts that a web
> service implementer could pick up and use/implement with no MDA magic.
> What
> can be shown as an ADDED BENEFITS of MDA is that the same logical model
> can
> also be implemented on other technologies (such as ebXML or
> XML(Atom/1.0+custom vocabulary)) and expressed in different ways
> (including
> as an ontology). An additional added benefit is automation of producing
> such solutions. But, that is what an MDA participant will show - it is
> not
> required to participate. Perhaps you could do the same for your approach.
>
> So what I am suggesting is that we leverage the huge investment that has
> been made to support the web services stack by almost every vendor and
> show
> how that can be utilized to support a SOA community. In doing so we
> should
> make it clear that WS is a technology choice, it is not required for SOA.
> Participants would be free, of course, to demonstrate the advantage of
> other
> or additive technology choices but would probably also want to implement
> the
> specified web services to show they can also play with the community's
> current chosen technology. Do we have consensus on this?
>
> -Cory
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|