[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)
Ann Wrightson wrote: > > Joe, > > You wrote: > > For example, a methodology could start out (roughly) as: > > (1) Define all entities in your architecture > (2) Identify all data exchange points > (3) Identify the type of data (in general) that needs to be exchanged > (4) If the type of data is transactional (i.e. purchase order/invoice), then > the pattern is "Transactional" > > I'm wondering: > > How would you sort out whether *the type of data is transactional*? Ah - I could have put this a better way: (4) If the exchange is transactional in nature > - this > question is in the context of an assignment I'm engaged on (concerning > interoperability of services between disparate IT and different > organizations) where I'm supporting a team doing 1&3, against a background > of knowing more or less the kind of 2s that are wanted, and explicitly > deferring steps like 4 since the data representations of entities are seen > as contingently rather than necessarily participating in transactions. > > This feels right to me from a philosophical/theoretical point of view, and > also practically in that for example the assembly of information that is an > invoice plays a part in a transaction, but may also be stored in a system of > record, or play a role in a legal matter. Absolutely. I think the shift from the data to the exchange (as in my response above) might help resolve this ambiguity. Thanks Ann! Joe > ... or do I have the wrong end of the stick? > > Regards, > > Ann W. -- Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]