When comparing the DRM and
SOA-RM, one needs to keep in mind that the 2 reference models each have
different primary focuses (foci) - one is for data, the other is for SOA. So one
should not expect these 2 reference models to be related as closely as perhaps
portrayed below and in earlier postings (in my opinion, such a situation would
be incorrect as it would indicate scope creep within each reference model into
the other's).
There are, however, distinct
synergies and overlaps between them - as there should be. I have covered these
in recent presentations in which I presented a mapping between the DRM and
SOA-RM (most recently in a lecture at GMU last week), and I will also portray
synergies between the DRM and SOA in my presentation on "Service-Oriented Information Sharing: Leveraging
the FEA Data Reference Model (DRM) 2.0" at the upcoming "SOA for eGovernment"
conference.
Thanks,
Joe
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf
of Paul S Prueitt
Sent: Tue 5/9/2006 10:23 PM
To:
Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
Cc: 'Alan
Ruttenberg'
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web
2.0
excellent, so the definition of a reference model; which is well
done in both documents is a common benefit.
I see
this now. thank you.
What I
would like to also see is the full sense of how Web 2.0 events will be both
localized and non-localized; something that the SOA RM addresses very well and
yet I do not see this local - nonlocality being addressed in
DRM.
What
is a transaction, for example. Are there un-measured aspects of any
"natural" "real" transaction that are characteristically not accounted for
in the DRM but which are accounted for in a high level conceptual fashion
in the SOA RM? Is this part of the problem with information flow in the
federal government, or not? (This is just a question.)
Service? The definition of "service". Are there only
localized aspects of a "service", or are there non-localizable aspects of
natural occurrences that we regard as "services". The SOA RM addresses
these natural aspects in ways which one does not clearly see in the
DRM. Am I missing this benefit from the SOA RM to the DRM or is it
missing?
If it
is missing, what can be done to make a correction?
Alan
Ruttenberg and a large dedicated community of biological scientists and
bioinformatics specialist are working on the biopax model, in OWL Full, of
cell and gene _expression_ data. We see the issues related to non-locality,
non-measured participants, and other issues that can be mapped to the SOA RM,
but not to the DRM (data reference model) ... this is my opinion. I do not
speak for anyone but myself.... and only luck with a few comments now and
then....
As a
natural scientist, I feel that biopax is addressing the very leading edge in
information science, this is my opinion.
I see
the future service webs as transactions spaces "OF THE SOCIAL _expression_", and
thus the service webs of the future must, in my opinion, have those aspects of
interconnectivity, non-deterministic and n-articulation that we see in
the SOA RM, and in the OASIS BCM standard; but not in the federal data reference
model.
Actually no oversight at
all...I did not intend to bring SemWeb standards into my explanation. My
explanation was focused on the interoperability that SOA-RM can bring between
SOA-based systems, which is something that comes right out of the SOA-RM
spec.
As to how the DRM benefited from the
guidance in SOA-RM: Speaking only for myself, I was a major contributer to
both initiatives, as both a member of the OASIS SOA-RM TC and the primary
contractor supporting DHS (the lead agency) for the creation of DRM 2.0. You
may note some cross-pollination between the two reference models (e.g. the
definition of a reference model, what it is used for, etc.) which was partly
due to ideas that flowed from SOA-RM to DRM 2.0, which were both being created
at the same time.
Hope that helps,
Joe
From:
soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul S Prueitt
Sent:
Tue 5/9/2006 8:34 PM
To: Service-Oriented Architecture
CoP
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Fw: [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web
2.0
Joe,
With
respects. What I see in your note is that OASIS
SOA-RM
can
serve as a conceptual guidance for something called "by various people" Web
2.0. However, not all of the SemWeb standards are anywhere close to the
SOA RM. You note does not seem to acknowledge this fact. Perhaps
this is an oversight?
In
the SOA RM here are a set of very specific concepts developed in a simple
fashion (38 pages ?) and some of these are concepts that seem to me, and
others, to just be ignored in other standards. You mention the federal
data reference model.
Many
months ago, I questioned the definition of community that is in this data
reference model, and the fact that the documents describing this reference
model are not easy to grab hold of conceptually. I still have that
opinion.
The
OASIS SOA RM, on the other hand can be read and understood by any well meaning
freshman college student.
The
DRM on the other hand is not easily understood, and part of this is that there
are authoritarian statement about how things are; when in fact there are good
reasons to suggest that the "thing" is not as described. I will take the
term "relationship" to start with, section 3.4. The DRM Abstract
Model is useful but it is focused on computer data. The sometimes vast
differences between computer data and the real world is not addressed or even
hinted at. The SOA-RM consistently explicitly deals with this
difference. So in this precise sense, I would claim that (in this
specific sense) the DRM has not guidance from the OASIS SOA RM.
It
is as if the SOA RM does not exist for the DRM Abstract Model. The Topic
Maps 1.0 standard was all about this difference, and the RDF folks beat up on
TM until TM is now almost gone. The issue of correspondence between real
world and data is marginally addressed in the SOA RM because (it is stated)
that the SOA RM is not about "only" the computer data world.
If
the US Federal Data Reference Model is mute on this issue, which I suggest
that it is, then there is no benefit obtained by the DRM from the SOA
RM. I may be mistaken and would love to see the specifics where
you , or anyone else, sees a correspondence between the DRM and the SOA
RM. How does, or how did, or how might the DRM benefit from the guidance
in the SOA RM?
When
one goes to understand what Web 2.0 !! is !! (I think that the phrase
"Web 2.0" is just a phase being used with out precisely defined meaning) one
gets a particular (possible) architecture etc for doing
something...
What
is this something, in your eyes?
Not
two hundred pages of words in a URL, but in simple terms. A few
sentences or a paragraph.
If
you would be so kind...
I believe the OASIS SOA-RM can provide a foundation for Web 2.0's
advancement because of Web 2.0's focus on collaboration. Such collaboration
is facilitated by interoperability among multiple SOA implementations
(meaning among the services that these implementations provide), and this
interoperability can be facilitated by an enhanced ability to relate and
compare multiple SOA implementations - and such an enhanced ability can be
provided by the SOA Reference Model.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Is there
something that one can directly compare W* or Web 2.0 or what ever (is W*
sameAs Web 2.0) to the OASIS SOA RM?
Joe, in
my humble opinion, the links below have more information than one needs
(information about the author(s) and about his/their
opinions).
To the
SOA CoP...
OASIS SOA
RM is in my opinion complete adequate and sufficient for social
transformations that I am hoping to help.
As has been
mentioned, the "phenomenon" of case based reasoning is
vital to causing the types of complicated cascades that are needed
in a new type of computing and
communication . Computers need
these cases enumerated. Web-ontology is doing this now days and
doing it well, in a few
cases. Human
communication needs choice points (BCM standard) and measurements to
test when the cases are not adequate in a particular situation.
What most
miss is that human reasoning is constantly in touch with reality, what I and
others (Aldo de Moor) call the
pragmatic axis.
The OASIS SOA RM does not miss this, and yet most
other standards do miss this - particularly (the judgment can be made) W3C
standards. (Show me one that does, and I will be very happy to review
it.) The reason why this is a RM and not an architecture is to correct
architectures that have no or little reference capabilities to natural
processes. (Again, this means process models and really alignment to
real temporal events.) This is a call for a principled discussion if
someone feels slighted by a slight critic of W3C.
The issue is clarity of the standards, and fidelity
to the natural processes that the standards should be helping us model and
assist ourselves and others with "web services".
Yes?
This is
where an alignment with the OASIS SOA-RM is necessary, because this RM is
correct (in the context I am speaking) and because of the break through
(conceptually) within the leadership (some of it) of the Federal CIO
Council, in this context. We feel that more than any other thing,
other than an awareness of n-ary
ontology and Ontology referential
bases, this alignment to the OASIS RM has the greatest merit.
Stakeholders
will understand this alignment, but we need to demonstrate that we have mastered this RM and understand how to do web service architectures within the
scope of the RM.
In my mind, not having seen all
standards, for me.....The SOA-RM, the FERA (Federated Enterprise Reference Architecture)
and the following other standards
complete a * cover over the high level standards the federal government should
adopt.
SOA-IM
(Information Model)
SOA-CS
(Collaborative Services)
BCM
(Business Centric Methodology) adopted at OASIS in April 2006.
ebXML
(electronic business XML) strongly supported by SUN and reasonably
good.
* by
cover, I mean that all of the issues are taken care of at one level (in
this case the high level cover is a conceptual cover).
Paul
Prueitt
For those scratching their head wondering
what Web 2.0 is, here are some good
resources:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/cto/archives/007200.asp (“Web
2.0: The Web as the Global SOA")
http://webservices.sys-con.com/read/164532.htm (“Web 2.0 The Global
SOA")
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1906053,00.asp ("Web 2.0 Label Lacks Meaning,
Magic")
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Thanks Susan. Here is another excellent piece on this very topic
from late last week, from SOA analyst Joe McKendrick:
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
FYI -
I wasn't aware of consternation between SOA and Web
2.0. I just think of open API mash-ups as SOA-lite.
Susan
Susan B. Turnbull
Senior Program Advisor
Office of
Intergovernmental Solutions
Office of Citizen Services and
Communications
US General Services Administration
p
202.501.6214
susan.turnbull@xxxxxxx
http://www.gsa.gov/intergov
----- Forwarded by Susan B.
Turnbull/XCI/CO/GSA/GOV on 05/09/2006 04:55 PM -----
"Bill St.Arnaud" <bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
news-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
05/09/2006 03:28 PM
|
Please respond
to
bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
To
| news@xxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [CAnet - news] SOA versus Web
2.0 |
|
For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE
CA*net 4 Optical
Internet program web site at
http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/list.html
-------------------------------------------
[Some
excerpts from Jon Hagel's blog. Thanks to a contributor who wishes
to
remain anonymous--
BSA]
http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2006/04/soa_versus_web
_.html
SOA
Versus Web 2.0?
As I indicated in my previous posting, a cultural
chasm separates these two
technology communities, despite the fact that
they both rely heavily on the
same foundational standard - XML. The
evangelists for SOA tend to dismiss
Web 2.0 technologies as
light-weight "toys" not suitable for the "real" work
of enterprises.
The champions of Web 2.0 technologies, on the other hand,
make
fun of the "bloated" standards and architectural drawings generated
by
enterprise architects, skeptically asking whether SOAs will ever do
real
work.
Both Web 2.0 and SOA technologies re-conceive
software as services. Perhaps
even more importantly, they view services
as platforms. Rather than viewing
services as standalone offers
designed to be consumed exactly as written,
both sets of technologies
start with the vision that the role of any service
is ultimately to
become the building block for even more services that will
be built on
top of the original service.
Amazon provides an early, and very
limited, example of this opportunity. By
developing an affiliate
program and offering a book buying service that can
be embedded into
other web sites, Amazon has been able to significantly
expand its reach
and create a much more robust platform for driving
e-commerce
activity.
The growing appeal of Web 2.0 technologies in part stems
from this hijacking
of SOAs. Line executives within the
enterprise are experiencing mounting
frustration over the escalating
hype around SOAs, the growing spending over
SOA design initiatives and
the relatively limited business impact achieved
by SOA deployments.
In contrast, Web 2.0 initiatives are leading to a
proliferation
of mashups (one form of composition), as described by Dion
Hinchcliffe
in "The Web 2.0 Mashup Ecosystem Ramps Up" and "Some Predictions
for
the Coming 'Mashosphere' "
Does this mean SOAs are DOA? Not at
all. SOAs still provide a valuable
foundation to support the
sustained relationships required for distributed
creation. But
these SOAs need to be deployed in a much more incremental and
pragmatic
way. Perhaps a little competition from Web 2.0 technologies
will
help to break the logjam and force both IT departments and IT
consultants to
adapt their culture and operations to growing business
pressure for
accelerated impact and learning.
As JSB and I
discuss in much more detail in The Only Sustainable Edge,
the
convergence of SOAs, virtualization architectures and Web 2.0
social
software will drive the next wave of value creation within and
across
enterprises. The convergence will not unfold smoothly, as
much of the
current debate confirms, but it will take place - there is
too much at stake
and each of these technology arenas offers something
distinctive in
supporting next generation business
platforms.
-------------------------------------
To
SUBSCRIBE:
send a blank e-mail message
to
news-join@xxxxxxxxxx
To UNSUBSCRIBE:
send a blank email
message
to
news-leave@xxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
These
news items and comments are mine alone and do not necessarily
reflect
those of the CANARIE board or
management.
-----------
Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
www.canarie.ca/~bstarn
skype:
pocketpro
SkypeIn: +1 614
441-9603
_______________________________________________
news
mailing
list
news@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.canarie.ca/mailman/listinfo/news
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|