[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: review of Educational powerpoint
A few comments about the powerpoint. I haven’t made any changes yet, as wanted to get folks
input first. 1.
The first six slides do not clearly differentiate SAF
from (yet another) CEP/Workflow. The remaining slides, however, do a
great job of differentiation. Would recommend starting with slide 7,
and moving the first 6 slides to the back of the deck. 2.
Slide 3 explains Symptom, Syndrome, Protocol, and
Prescription. It would be good to articulate that these entities are
primarily envelopes for events, rules, action templates, and actions. Thus
we aren’t re-inventing BPEL, RuleML, etc. 3.
The “cartoon” slides are great, but missing
two important pieces: a. The
provider is likely to provide Symptoms (and thus contribute Syndromes to the
catalog). The Symptoms would generally describe service notifications
such as “service will be out for maintenance”, or “unplanned outage”,
etc. b. There
is no discussion of composability. The consumer would typically compose
Syndromes from other syndromes (contributed from various sources) and also “glue”
Syndromes to Protocols. In my opinion – composability of diverse
syndromes/protocols is the key differentiator for SAF. 4.
Getting nitpicky, but slide 23 is titled “Collaborations”,
and I initially thought it was describing SAF catalog collaborations. Thoughts? |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]