[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [saf] RE: SAF meeting today - symptoms/prescription
The intent was a brainstorming exercise
to generate ideas about what symptoms could be generated. The next step would be to see
what maps to the cloud. Perhaps not much. Regarding invoicing/billing…
This could be an area where someone (DMTF) standardizes the interaction for
invoicing in the cloud and that could become part of our profile. At
present DMTF incubator has just defined contract interactions, and not
specifically to invoicing/billing. Your “outstanding invoices
exceed credit limits” is a better example though. Regarding the other comments
(symptoms is a standard for REPORTING)… I think this is way off the mark. SAF is two things: -
A standard way to
collaboratively capture decision/action information -
A standard way to
share that information with similar domains We are focusing on the cloud
domain. The purpose of this exercise is
to understand what symptoms/prescriptions are typical in business setting,
scope it to cloud, and then hopefully identify any additional attributes that
would be needed to support these types of symptoms (and subsequent syndromes). -jeff From: Black, Alvin This exercise highlights one of
the key challenges we face with defining the problem domain of SAF. I
don’t THINK that any of us envision SAF as being just a generic
information exchange standard. Perhaps adoption and interest in the standard
will not develop until we become MORE restrictive about what SAF is, rather
than trying to make it more all-inclusive. We’ve deliberately steered
away from any such restriction in the past, but perhaps we need to limit SAF to
the domain of “alerting about problems that may exist.” We
can still be generous in our definition of “problem” – an
under-optimized system, for example, could be considered a
“problem.” Perhaps SAF is really just a standard for generic
business process exception handling. To take just the first row in
the below table as an example: Invoices: Do we really
want to say that SAF can handle “primary” data packet transfers for
well defined business processes such as invoicing? My concern here is
that there are probably already established information exchange packets for
sharing invoices. I don’t think that we could possibly make any
inroads in to the exchange of invoices, and in fact, attempting to do so may
actually weak the argument for SAF (we won’t be taken seriously). So, in my mind, sending an
invoice via SAF is clearly outside of the scope. However, raising
concerns about an invoice may not be outside of the scope of symptoms.
For example, the following may be a better example of something that would be within
the domain of SAF (at least in my opinion): “Outstanding invoices
exceed credit limits of customer.” So, sending an invoice within
SAF would not be a good fit (this is a normal business flow). Sending a notification that an
invoice had been paid would not be a good fit (this is a normal business flow) However, getting a symptom about
a chargeback on a credit card (for example) and using that to trigger a
prescription (turn off customer account) MAY be in the SAF domain (even this
could arguably be a normal business flow though). So the basic mindset is –
if a system encounters a PROBLEM (or an indication of a potential problem)
which it CAN NOT HANDLE within its domain, symptoms becomes the standard for
REPORTING that problem to SOME OTHER ENTITY. Now the danger with this
approach is that someone might think it is “just another event
format.” Symptoms should perhaps be defined as the “subset of
events that require mediating actions by an outside source.” Hence,
an audit event (“User XYZ successfully logged in”) is NOT a
symptom, even though it is an event. Thoughts on this anyone?
My fear is that we are becoming a giant vacuum cleaner for generic information
flow scenarios – and I don’t think we will succeed if that is what
we become. - Alvin From: Vaught, Jeffrey A
[mailto:Jeffrey.Vaught@ca.com] Here are the results of my
brainstorm (in table below), so far. Will hopefully have more on the
call today. From: Vaught, Jeffrey A Proposed Agenda: -
Outreach review -
Cloud Profile – potential prescriptions & symptoms
across different business functions Most of the meeting will focus on the latter (Cloud
Profile). Please be prepared to discuss candidate symptoms (and
prescriptions) emitted from different business functions. Pick your
favorite business function and “have at it”! Below is a list of business functions (stolen from a
McDonald’s website). I’ve organized into two columns –
Cloud Consumer & Cloud Provider.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]