Hmmm,
This might become a metadiscussion around the relative merits of referring to EA or SOA, and I’m certainly sensitive to the issues of perceptions of scope of both.
A quick insight to why, in my thinking at least, SOA > EA.
We struggled hard in the SOA-RM TC to ensure that the vision of SOA was broad and specifically not technology dependent – we argued that it was a paradigm for service delivery in a distributed, multiply owned and governed ecosystem. OTOH, perceptions of EA are precisely all-of-enterprise but still *within* an enterprise.
At the end of the day, this TC will not be the place to argue which is more appropriate (and I know that you’re not suggesting that it should, me neither), so it will be a question of getting across the importance of enterprise architecture (lower case) and the relevance of SOA (understood in its SOA-RM sense) as a paradigm
Cheers,
Peter
From: david.webber@google.com [mailto:david.webber@google.com]
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2011 13:40
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; 'John Borras'; 'TGF TC List '; David Webber
Cc: 'Chris Parker'
Subject: Re: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
Peter,
For BCM we looked to take a technology neutral view.
So at a minimum this should be enterprise architecture. Notice this has allowed BCM to stay relevant 5th years on.
Also I think SOA is a much more limited world view, and enterprise architecture is essential for completeness. Notice there is plenty of work we can reference on OASIS and more so we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Sent from myTouch 4G
----- Reply message -----
From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: "'John Borras'" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>, "'TGF TC List '" <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "'Chris Parker'" <chris.parker@cstransform.com>
Subject: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2011 11:16 am
John:
Your question: “should we drop reference in the structure diagram to Enterprise Architecture Patterns, as we don’t mention them anywhere else?” and further comments in the text are extremely valid. We could go for a purely SOA-based approach and simply drop all reference to EA. I understand where Colin is going with his comment about superset/subset, but I don’t think we need to articulate that point explicitly as we may get unnecessarily side-tracked. There is still however a substantial constituency of EA that does not (yet?) think along purely SOA lines so maybe the issue about keeping/dropping it is premature but needs to be discussed. We also need to think about we are referring to enterprise architecture (lower-case) issues in general or Enterprise Architecture (upper-case) as a particular design paradigm.
Peter
From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, 06 February 2011 12:17
To: 'TGF TC List '
Cc: 'Chris Parker'
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
Hi All
Chris was right, his file was too big to be handled by the mailing list. So attached is a PDF version and I’ve uploaded the .doc version to the TC KAVI site.
John
From: Chris Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com]
Sent: 06 February 2011 12:54
To: John Borras; 'TGF TC List '
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
John
Thanks. But it turns out you are probably the only one who can read the paper! The TGF mailing list has refused to circulate what was a 14 meg file. Would you mind recirculating as a pdf or posting to the web, as I now can't do that till tomorrow?
Thanks,
Chris Parker
Managing Partner, CS Transform
+44 7951 754060
From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: 06 February 2011 13:25
To: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com>; 'TGF TC List ' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
Chris
On a first read this is terrific, well done. I like the whole structure and flow and if we agree to keep all the content in then we would have a very rich Primer to show the world. I will go through it in more detail now and post detailed comments, as I hope everyone else will. As you say we need to think really hard about the conformance clauses and no doubt there will be discussion around some of those and perhaps the inclusion of some of the content.
All
It would be good to get initial reactions to this draft very quickly please so we can decide whether to pursue it and provide detailed comments or ask Chris to make fundamental changes. Agreement on this as the way forward at the TC meeting on 17th will be a significant step forward. If anyone would like to have a working call to talk about this draft then let me know and I’ll set it up.
John
From: Chris Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com]
Sent: 06 February 2011 09:41
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; 'John Borras'
Cc: 'TGF TC List '
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS Formal procedures for deliverables and our path forward - Today's call and Next Steps
Dear all
Attached is the next draft of the TGF Primer that the group agreed on Friday should be our next step.
As agreed, I have aimed at pulling all the material that seems sensibly part of the top-level standard into a single document. The document still uses appendices, so it would be easy to split back into a multi-part document if that is what we decide later on. For the moment, though it’s probably simpler to see the interconnections and to manage a change process around a single document.
I have sought to move away from the original CS Transform material where this seemed to be getting in the way of the TGF (both in terms of structure, and tone of voice).
Changes include:
- A new intro section, which seeks to position the document: setting out context, defining what we mean by "TG" in the first place, defining the intended audience etc
- Extra material on leadership, governance and stakeholders (reflecting comments from the group)
- Greater prominence to the elements dealing with third parties and intermediary delivery
- A new consistent structure for the four business/customer/channel/technology frameworks
- Some tweaks to the various diagrams (including the top-level TGF diagram) to reflect these changes
- More detailed Conformance Criteria.
I’ve aimed to make the draft as full as possible, while stripping out the contentious/polemical aspects of the original white paper material. The key to this I think is the conformance section: are we happy as a group to say that all of the criteria listed here (which, as I say, are more detailed now than in Peter’s original outline) are mandatory parts of any conformant Transformational Government program? I would certainly argue for all of the criteria. But if the group as a whole feels some of them are contentious, then we may want also to look at “downgrading” some of the relevant sections of text out of the core standard and into less formal advisory notes.
The new paper also incorporates the contributions Nig made on the last drafts. One question which Nig raised however was whether it is right to include "the Concentrix". My view is that the term itself (which we came up with in CS Transform when wewere thinking of this as brand for potentially licensable IP) has no place in an open standards document. But I think that the concept it represents - basically, the idea of brand-led service delivery - is important, and that the three ocmponents it illustrates (citizen insight management, product management and marketing communications) are essential parts of the TGF. So I have kept the ideas but rewritten the text to make it more neutral and self-explanatory.
I hope that the group feels all this is heading in the right direction. If so, then the major gap that we will need to fill is the proposed annexes on SOA, and on terminology/reference model.
Chris Parker
Managing Partner, CS Transform
+44 7951 754060
From: Peter F Brown [peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: 04 February 2011 17:38
To: 'John Borras'; Chris Parker
Cc: 'TGF TC List '
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS Formal procedures for deliverables and our path forward - Today's call and Next Steps
I’ve submitted to Chris the reworked draft and ‘handed over the baton’ of editorial control on this for the time I’m away.
Chris, note that my draft to you did not yet take on board Nig’s detailed comments – Chris can see these too and I wanted to get the new agreed skeleton structure to him asap
Cheers,
Peter
From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, 04 February, 2011 08:56
To: 'Chris Parker'
Cc: 'TGF TC List '
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS Formal procedures for deliverables and our path forward - Today's call and Next Steps
Chris
Following the call today and talking further with Peter, nothing fundamentally new has arisen to change our thinking as outlined in Peter’s note below. So what we want to focus now on producing the “TGF Primer” – note the new name, which essentially will take most of what Peter had included in his Core Framework document plus as much of the uncontested material from the three other Frameworks, ie Business Mgmt, Customer Mgmt and Channel Mgmt, as you think appropriate. And it is this Primer that we look to approve at our March TC meeting. Whether we approve it as a Committee Specification Draft or just as a Committee Note is up for discussion but we don’t need to worry too much about that at this particular point. It may well depend on how many sensible conformance clauses we can put into it.
We will almost certainly pull the Primer apart in the next iteration as we separate out the various Frameworks into stand-alone much more detailed documents, plus the Reference Model that Peter refers to below. But at least with the Primer we will have something to use in our wider discussions with the outside world, eg EC, White House, WB, ERIS@, etc, something that we can turn into a standard presentation, and something we can use as a marketing tool.
So will you now take over editing control from Peter please whilst he’s away and look to put together the draft of the Primer with a target of posting a first cut by the end of next week for discussion and review. Peter will very quickly send you a revised outline of the Primer for you to work with. Please ensure you take on board Nig’s recent suggested changes which are in the attached if you don’t have them with you. Peter will look after turning the document into the required OASIS template in due course so don’t worry too much about the formatting, a simple document will do at this stage. If you want to, and have the time available, to have a working review later next week then let me know and I’ll set it up. If we can get a good first draft for discussion in time for our next TC meeting on 17th then we should be very well placed to have a final version ready for approval at the March meeting.
John
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: 04 February 2011 02:18
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] OASIS Formal procedures for deliverables and our path forward
Hi:
First off, apologies if some of the points I propose here seem to partly contradict previous posts – but it has been a necessarily iterative process between the formal constraints of the OASIS TC Process and achieving our work objectives that I discussed in some detail again with John today – so, here goes…
Our constraints:
- ‘Multi-part” deliverables must nonetheless be advanced as a single batch through the TC process, making it difficult to work and advance separate pieces independently.
- When we want to start formally using the required OASIS deliverable templates, we have to state from the outset the type of deliverable, name, id, etc. Best practice: think carefully and try to get it right first time, fit for purpose
- We want to achieve a series of interlocking work items whilst taking some further and faster forward than others.
I would therefore like to suggest the following work plan:
- First deliverable: instead of a ‘TGF Core Framework’, we create and approve a “TGF Primer” – consisting largely of the ‘first level’ stuff I proposed in Part I of the currently--titled ‘TGF Core’: this deliverable would be broad, not necessarily too deep, covering the whole of the essence of the work we are doing – it doesn’t necessarily have to be advanced to an OASIS committee specification or standard, but the fact that it is titled ‘Primer’ gives a clear message as to its intended use:
o Chris works on this following tomorrow’s working session and aims to have a rough informal draft by end of next week
o for discussion at Feb 17 TC meeting;
o If this conforms with general expectations, I would ‘register’ this to be started as a ‘Committee Specification Draft’ (in OASIS formal terminology) and transfer any draft into the formal template;
o We would publish this to list and open an ‘issues list’ allowing members to comment and raise editing and conceptual issues;
o Editors will look at each issue submitted and propose new ‘dispositions of text’ (using OASIS speak)
o Draft and issues list would be discussed at March meeting and if sufficient consensus, be adopted then – if not, further cycles until adopted
o ‘Adopted’ means (in formal process terms) agreeing the text as a ‘Committee Specification Draft’ (CSD)
o This ‘Primer’ would mark a ‘baseline’ that we can work from for other deliverables and provide a reference for our organisations ‘marketing’ and promotional work
o The Primer CSD can stay in that ‘state’ as long as we want – it can be put out for public review, it can be further re-drafted internally, or we can simply sit on it for the time being
- Next deliverables: The three ‘Management Frameworks’ (Business, Customer and Channel) and (and this is a new suggestion) a fourth, a TGF Reference Model, that would include the terminology, conceptual relationships and some (tbd) level of formal or semi-formal modelling
o As above, we start work on each of these four as informal drafts, with sub-editors assigned to each and aim to get a rough draft to the TC as soon as possible – maybe on same time schedule as for Primer but as they are de-linked, it gives us flexibility to move the first forward asap as a baseline marker;
o I am essentially proposing pulling parts II and IV from the first draft of the current ‘TGF Core’ document out and making that a distinct deliverable – this will also be more consistent with our charter that states unequivocally that the TGF will include a Reference Model
o Once we’re happy, again would register these four as starting the process towards CSD, and follow same process;
o We should aim at the latest for the March TC to agree to start these on the formal CSD track;
o Unlike the Primer, however, our objective for these four is to advance them to approved OASIS Committee Specification and, if conformance issues are dealt with, to full OASIS Standard;
- Other deliverables: as and when possible, start drafting content for two possible ‘Committee Notes’ that cover, respectively, “SOA” and “tools and models for the business management framework” – others can follow as material appears and TC agrees:
o Similar process to above – first rough draft; when TC is happy, register as work products to follow the non-standards track, to become ‘Committee Notes’
If others are agreeable, it is in this direction that we will try to work tomorrow and get some first rough drafts out to the TC in the coming weeks. First target would be to have a rough-hewn text of the TGF Primer in plenty of time for discussion at next TC. Game on!
Cheers,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
Blog pensivepeter.wordpress.com
LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter
Twitter @pensivepeter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278