OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-blueprints message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [soa-blueprints] Questions to the Group

I think this liason makes sense and since we had discussed a third subgroup or subcommittee on the first call this could be a function of that entity.

On 12/15/05, marchadr@wellsfargo.com <marchadr@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
I vote for keeping it on right now or having a working committee where the Soa Logic working group and the Generico group can exchange information to keep the approaches pretty unified.

Maybe the SoaLogic points to Generico for the supporting part of it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Miko Matsumura [mailto:mmatsumura@infravio.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:42 AM
To: John Harby; Marchant, Dan R.
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Questions to the Group

Since there are existing implementations of Generico, we should certainly not rock the boat too greatly, however, creating a context where SOAlogic and Generico can sensibly be related is a good idea imho. Is there interest in creating SOALogic and Generico subcommittees?


       -----Original Message-----
       From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com]
       Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 8:39 AM
       To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com
       Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
       Subject: Re: [soa-blueprints] Questions to the Group

       I disagree. I am in favor of the discussion on the last call which proposed separating the Generico update activity and developing the others in parallel. One primary reason is the maturity of Generico combined with the existing implementations.

       On 12/15/05, marchadr@wellsfargo.com <marchadr@wellsfargo.com> wrote:

               1. Do we want to combine the SoaLogic (previously CoaLogic) with Generico Requirements?
                  Proposal of how it would fit together:
                      - "HR Supporting Service" would be based entirely on the Generico Requirements contribution
                          - Generico would be put into the following sections
                              - HR Supporting Service Model
                              - HR Supporting Service Architecture
                              - HR Supporting Service Mapping

                 This would give the Case Study currently on Kavi "working folder" the following parts:
                  - An Enterprise View - Soa Logic
                  - A Project View - Soa Logic product introduction "lawn vacuum"
                  - A Supporting Service View - Generico

                 Would help in having the same people that would be working on a generico update contributing to a more exhaustive case study/blueprint realization.

               2. Do we have a framework/blueprints document like the one on Kavi "working folder" to illustrate the general patterns that anyone can realize with the reference of a realization being the case study document?

               3. Do we have a seperate methodology document or set of documents that faciliate a user of the framework/blueprints document to get to a realization?

               So the proposal would be to have the following deliverables:
               DOC-1. SOA Adoption Blueprints - creates a framework type document for anything that can be generalized
                      - contains the work from the SOA Blueprints Concepts document from the Middleware group, within service types section
                      - contains some parts of the Capgemni contribution as a service model section
               DOC-2. SOA Case Study - Soa Logic - incorporates the work from the generic requirements document and the existing Soa Logic content
               DOC-3. SOA Methodology - builds on the Capgemni contributions



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]