[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Clarifications from F2F
While reading our F2F minutes, I pulled out some points that (IMHO) we perhaps did not have enough time to fully discuss at our F2F, and thus they appear more unresolved than resolved. Here they are - should we create separate e-mail threads for each of these? Or hold off on discussing them until our first call? (1) What are we chartered to deliver? (2) What is the scope of the term "architecture" for us? - Team Summary: We should capture the business requirements view for the architecture and be able to map them to an architectural blueprint. (3) Who is our audience? (NOTE: David Webber provided some suggestions on the listserv prior to our F2F) (4) How to handle convergence with ebXML and WS-*? (5) Is the "eb" in ebSOA used on purpose to focus on SOA from an ebXML perspective? - Duane commented that ebSOA IS NOT ebXML SOA, rather e-business SOA. Important legal distinction. - Farrukh: this architecture should not focus on "eb", but enough to get enterprises connected. (6) Suggested outcome: Define a set of patterns/blueprints that map to individual specifications and their interactions. (7) Requirements: Duane commented that our requirements are documented in the ebXML 1.06 requirements document. (is this a closed issue? more discussion required?) -- Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]