Brand -----soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP <soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx> Sent by: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: 04/08/2006 07:30PM Subject: RE: [soa-forum] proposed futures of SOA wiki and forum
<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>
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].
Joe
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=semantic-ex
Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
-----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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|