Re: [ebsoa] SOA BUP (was - Quick answers to David's questions)

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Duane / Joe,

What I'm thinking of in terms of patterns is two layers - at
the top layer we literally specify just the component parts -
something like this:

Pattern 'A' - uses - Semantic Registry, Knowledge Agent,
 Context Driven Visualization, Persistence Store,
 Information Query-Response Process, Secure Messaging,
 User authorization portal, XQuery engine with RDF / OWL
 support.
 - SOA category - POA
 - description - secure smart agent for querying stock trade
    information and trends.
 - ontology - financial / analysis / bond trading
 - context definitions :  URI
http://registry.ebsoa.org/context/1342dsgljk.xml

Then maybe something for layer two - components packaging
definitions -

[BPSS script, CPA, XForms, CAM template, UDDI User Profile].

Done this way - people could mix and match the implementation
layer detail, while provide strong pattern detail.

It's very flexible but does not rely on anything proprietary - we
can use simple XML and OWL and Registry stuff to engineer
this.  Infact I suspect the Registry SCM team is probably already
making the parts with which we can implement such a system
already.....

What we need to define is the extensible list of component
parts that go into an ebSOA - so people can document
those needed for their pattern - and some default
ones - that we label as categories - such as POA, EPR,
etc.

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
Cc: <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA BUP (was - Quick answers to David's questions)


> Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> > +1 - I believe that having Business Use Patterns is important in order
> > to map those to the SOA patterns.  That is the differentiator that our
> > architecture is specific to those business patterns.
> >
> > The problem will be deciding what level of granularity to go into each
> > business pattern or how many we do.  Perhaps we embrace a methodology
> > for allowing people to define their own patterns.  It would be arrogant
> > of us to think that we, as a group, could define all the patterns that
> > would ever be used by business on a global scale IMO.
> >
> > The best course of action will be to probably black box the methodology
> > for now, just say there is one, that allow people to capture the
> > business lexicon in a series of artifacts, some of which should be BUP??
>
> +1
>
> Joe
>
> > I know that BCM, UMM, RUP and other methodologies have driven at this
> > for years.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Two reminder as chair:
> >
> > First - let's make sure we don;t cc people who we know are on the list.
> >  We only needone copy each.
> >
> > Second - we should try to keep the thread titles specific to the
> > content.  I changed this one to SOA BUP.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > /d
> >
> > --
> > Senior Standards Strategist
> > Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > http://www.adobe.com
>
> -- 
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>