[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA BUP (was - Quick answers to David's questions)
Duane / Joe, What I'm thinking of in terms of patterns is two layers - at the top layer we literally specify just the component parts - something like this: Pattern 'A' - uses - Semantic Registry, Knowledge Agent, Context Driven Visualization, Persistence Store, Information Query-Response Process, Secure Messaging, User authorization portal, XQuery engine with RDF / OWL support. - SOA category - POA - description - secure smart agent for querying stock trade information and trends. - ontology - financial / analysis / bond trading - context definitions : URI http://registry.ebsoa.org/context/1342dsgljk.xml Then maybe something for layer two - components packaging definitions - [BPSS script, CPA, XForms, CAM template, UDDI User Profile]. Done this way - people could mix and match the implementation layer detail, while provide strong pattern detail. It's very flexible but does not rely on anything proprietary - we can use simple XML and OWL and Registry stuff to engineer this. Infact I suspect the Registry SCM team is probably already making the parts with which we can implement such a system already..... What we need to define is the extensible list of component parts that go into an ebSOA - so people can document those needed for their pattern - and some default ones - that we label as categories - such as POA, EPR, etc. DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> Cc: <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA BUP (was - Quick answers to David's questions) > Duane Nickull wrote: > > > > +1 - I believe that having Business Use Patterns is important in order > > to map those to the SOA patterns. That is the differentiator that our > > architecture is specific to those business patterns. > > > > The problem will be deciding what level of granularity to go into each > > business pattern or how many we do. Perhaps we embrace a methodology > > for allowing people to define their own patterns. It would be arrogant > > of us to think that we, as a group, could define all the patterns that > > would ever be used by business on a global scale IMO. > > > > The best course of action will be to probably black box the methodology > > for now, just say there is one, that allow people to capture the > > business lexicon in a series of artifacts, some of which should be BUP?? > > +1 > > Joe > > > I know that BCM, UMM, RUP and other methodologies have driven at this > > for years. > > > > Comments? > > > > Two reminder as chair: > > > > First - let's make sure we don;t cc people who we know are on the list. > > We only needone copy each. > > > > Second - we should try to keep the thread titles specific to the > > content. I changed this one to SOA BUP. > > > > Thanks > > > > /d > > > > -- > > Senior Standards Strategist > > Adobe Systems, Inc. > > http://www.adobe.com > > -- > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Associate > Booz | Allen | Hamilton >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]