|
Ajit,
You most definately hit the nail on the head here:
"Vendors are selling point solutions for the higher
layer protocols and we will end up creating EAI equivalent of the SOA
integration problem."
Even standards efforts can fall into this trap too -
taking EAI technology and merely adding web service interface
specifications to it!
What we've been focusing on in ebSOA is providing the
means for true semantic driven integration systems.
I've also seen the need to return to the critical topic
of "loose coupling". Everyone claims they are doing loosely
coupled implementations, but are they really?!?
What does loose coupling REALLY mean - both in terms of
transport layer integration, AND information exchange
integration?!
The XML/edi Group first coined the term 'loosely
coupled' back in 1998 - but since then it has taken on a marketing
gloss - without folks really articulating what and how their toolsets
actually support it.
Providing clear specifications and standards in support
of loose coupling remains just as tough now as back in 1998.
Fortunately folks have at least learned now what does
NOT work with XML and schema - and are now returning to the well to
draw out what insights they need to leverage and understand to resolve
the operational issues.
Hints: key words - Role, Context, self-adapting, fault
tolerant, agile, simple XML....
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:
[soa-forum] Question/Issue for the SOA CoP
From: "ajit kapoor"
<ajitorsarah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, August 16, 2006 6:18
pm
To: "Service-Oriented Architecture CoP"
<soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris,
Thanks for sharing your work. I must say I
agree with you in so much as it addresses the necessary technology
conditions that must be met to have a SOA paradigm, but the sufficiency
has largely been ignored (may be based on assumption that people and
process based practices will follow).
I have been quite intrigued by the "SOA
Buzz" industry wide but am concerned by the lack of understanding of
the architecture (if viewed only from a technology viewpoint). The best
practices should be addressed fundamentally from the view point of
standard processes, people/organizational culture (a basic propensity
to hinder change)and then overlay the technical layer on it. Also even
on the technology front the standards are still in flux and the best
efforts to integrate higher layer of the SOA protocol stack must rely
on the WS Interoperability forum. Vendors are selling point solutions
for the higher layer protocols and we will end up creating EAI
equivalent of the SOA integration problem. Where will the values be in
terms of reusability, etc. I believe the DoD and Government in general
as part of the GIG/NC initiative must take the lead in coalescing
multiple standards on all the fronts of people, process, and technology
so as to start talking about best practices building
blocks.
I look forward to other comments and
potential recommendations. The result of this exercise should be, in my
opinion, a roadmap from current SOA platform to the desired state with
People, process and technologies roadmap defined in an evolutionary and
standards way.
regards,
ajit kapoor
Lockheed Martin
EIS/CTO
(retiring October 1, 2006)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006
4:32 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-forum]
Question/Issue for the SOA CoP
Brand,
I’m working on a project sponsored by DISA Joint Interoperability
Test Command. A key component is the need to develop appropriate
SOA implementation and validation and verification guidance. The
idea is to provide a useful service to GIG software developers that
encourages re-use of best practices and code.
The attached
is a work in progress.
So….1.
We have a mandate to do this work. 2. We have no
“not-invented-here” issues. 3. We want to port as many
industrial best practices as possible. 4. We’re on a
fast track.
We welcome any
and all help from the SOA Forum. The attached is very much a work
in progress with no pride of authorship.
Best,
Chris
Chris Gunderson
Research Associate Professor of Information
Science
Naval Postgraduate
School
Principal Investigator, W2COG and Netcentric
Certification Office Initiatives
(O) 703 262 5332
(C) 831 224 5182
From:
soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Niemann.Brand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006
3:08 PM
To:
soa-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soa-forum] Question/Issue for the SOA
CoP
I have been asked about
the ownership/governance issue and whether any best practices
exist for SOA. We covered governance in the First SOA Conference
for E-Government, but I don't recall specifically ownership being
discussed. Any suggestions, references, etc. would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
Brand
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|