<Quote>
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.
</Quote> (01)
Just wanted to call attention to/raise awareness of an OASIS TC that is
tackling the issue of ontologies and SOA: The Semantic Execution
Environment (SEE) TC[1]. (02)
Joe (03)
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=semantic-ex (04)
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton (05)
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com (06)
-----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 (07)
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. (08)
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (09)
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. (010)
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). (011)
However, our forum (SAO CoP) has properly vetted the issue of fairness
to alternatives. (I claim.) (012)
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. (013)
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.) (014)
Additional recomendation: (015)
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. (016)
The "futures of SOA" forum would focus on "beyond the horizon"
efforts....
and would be supported by a wiki. (017)
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". (018)
Valid topics would be (019)
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 (020)
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. (021)
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. (022)
(A spec on this wiki based conceptualization of a domain of discourse is
being prepared.) (023)
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. (024)
www.businesscentricmethodology.com (025)
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. (026)
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 (027)
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". (028)
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. (029)
I am proposing that the CIO Council sponsor and give exposure to a
"futures of SOA: eforum AND wiki. (030)
this email is posted also at: (031)
http://www.secondschool.net/beads/communityCentric/home.htm (032)
-----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 (033)
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. (034)
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. (035)
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. (036)
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. (037)
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? (038)
-Cory (039)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (040)
|