|
Hi
Jeff,
see
inline
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.
It's a
good idea to start with the problem setting, but then in the cartoon slides we
use terms that haven't been defined yet (Diagnostician, Practitioner, etc). So
this is problematic...
[Vaught,
Jeffrey A] I’m worried that readers will already be convinced about SAF (that
it is just another rules framework) before getting to slide 7.
Diagnostician & Practitioner terms don’t really need defining. It is
obvious from the medical analogy.
I share
your concerns Jeff and I agree with starting with the problem first. However, I
do not think all the stuff in the following slides are self-explanatory or
obvious. I run through the slides internally with some colleagues and got some
expected questions: confusion of Protocol with communication etc protocols; what
is the Catalogue? Is it an index? Is it a service catalogue? And various other
similar questions. So we need to work on how to present and set those terms in
context if we follow this approach (which as I said I agree we should
follow).
Cheers,
Stavros
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.
+1
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.
I
agree with this as well. But then it might get bloated,
no?
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.
This
is also interesting but very difficult to depict properly I think! Open to
suggestions.
[Vaught, Jeffrey A] I’ll give this an attempt. I
think this is critical to depict.
4.
Getting nitpicky, but slide 23 is titled “Collaborations”, and I
initially thought it was describing SAF catalog collaborations.
:-) Do
you want to rewrite the title? Jeff has the pen!
[Vaught, Jeffrey A] Yes – this slide is a call for TC
members.
Cheers,
Stavros
|
______________________________________________________________________
Fujitsu
Laboratories of Europe Limited
Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road,
Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE
Registered No. 4153469
This e-mail
and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and
may
contain information which is privileged and confidential.
Unauthorised
use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited.
The fact that this
e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan
does not guarantee that
it has not been intercepted or amended nor
that it is virus-free. |
______________________________________________________________________
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE
Registered No. 4153469
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and
may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised
use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this
e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan does not guarantee that
it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is virus-free.
|
|