|David RR Webber (XML)||Mar 27, 2006 9:43 am|
|Subject:||[FWD: RE: [soa-forum] The purpose of a SOA demo]|
|From:||David RR Webber (XML) (dav...@drrw.info)|
|Date:||Mar 27, 2006 9:43:22 am|
FYI - from todays' discussion on SOA demo for SOA/CoP...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [soa-forum] The purpose of a SOA demo From: "Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)" <ps...@ontologystream.com> Date: Mon, March 27, 2006 12:40 pm To: "Cory Casanave" <cb...@enterprisecomponent.com>, "Service-Oriented Architecture CoP" <soa-...@colab.cim3.net> Cc: "John F. Sowa" <so...@bestweb.net>
I will spend the next 24 hours reading and thinking carefully about the materials I find at
I have been aware of your effort but not the specifics.
Cyrille's work on extending BCM focuses on some common issues 'which technology should be used"
'usage of other technologies like ESB (with WS-RM & WS-Notification), ebSOA, SEE'
In a very broad use case, one might start out with several groups (such as ourselves) being separated by our use of language and individual conceptualizations. How can collaboration/interoperability be developed that STARTS with a deep analysis of the full set of issues (the interaction space). What services are needed to facilitate that collaboration/interoperability?
Joe and Farrukh , for example obviously have great respect of the other's work, but somehow there is not an agreement on something that is a core issue. So is there a service that is needed here? What would this service be called?
Reconciliation of terminology issues is one way to tease out these differences between individual conceptualizations and to then allow a synthesis based on a deeper (commonly felt) expression of purpose.
To a very great extent, Cyrille's and mine approaches are becoming coherent (singular) through appreciation and through a focus on larger purposes.
Several individual 'conceptualization" are being synthesized into a 'BCM business" layer.
Having said that, our industry fails to move from high level conceptualizations to implementation. The substance of all of the individual conceptualization, and the substance of the merged conceptualization is not 'actionable" as yet.
This is what BCM is all about.
Along the way, we should be able to find precisely where the OsEra makes a contribution and where that may be some evolution pathway interesting to OMG (Object Management Group).
Many in this forum have come to understand my critic of FEA (federal enterprise architecture) as being too focused on what IT vendors are comfortable with and not focused on taking several steps towards the BCM notion of choice points (contracts between humans (at the conceptual layer) that often radically simplify what the technology has to do).
This simplification (if demonstrated) is where the huge value proposition is at. !!!!!!
An example, just to be specific, is in the SOA notions of 'web service discovery" and 'web service orchestration".
What about 'service discovery" and 'process orchestration" without the 'web" adjective?
Humans do service discovery" and 'process orchestration" sometimes in a masterful way, and sometimes very poorly. But in the general case, no computer program comes close to the synthesis that is required to create / discover what needs to be done.
Perhaps this is why government response to Katrina was as it was.
Visible links 1. http://www.osera.modeldriven.org/