Re: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] A few starting comments

FWIW, WG1 in SC38 is Web Services WG. SC38 WG3 covers Cloud.

Who is the "we" in 'we seem to have gotten off to a rocky start in our relationship with SC38 WG2'? How is the relationship 'rocky'?

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: 
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

-----<> wrote: -----

To: "" <>
From: Peter F Brown 

Sent by: 

Date: 06/07/2012 08:36PM
Subject: [public-sector-cloud-discuss] A few starting comments

Hi, in no particular order, just a few preliminary comments.

 

-         
I would like, formally, to be added to the list of proposers. I thought that I had done this already, my apologies for being behind the curve…;

-         
TC name is OK and I think it will be inevitable that the acronym “PACR” will be pronounced “pacer” – let’s be ready for that!;

-         
Relationship with other OASIS work: several TCs are working on related topics (IDCloud, TOSCA, PMRM, TGF, to name a few) – we need to be very clear about the “unique selling point” of this proposed TC and what gap it intends to fill
 (some personal ideas follow);

-         
Relationship with ISO, especially JTC1/SC38/WG1 – we seem to have gotten off to a rocky start in our relationship with SC38 WG2 (covering SOA), with no information coming back from ISO about initiatives and relevant and valid OASIS work
 (such as the SOA-RM) not being promoted. We must ensure that the same fate does not befall any relationship with WG1 looking at cloud standards;

-         
We should also look at several ISO standards that cover aspects of IT governance and cloud computing (for example ISO 10746, 15414, many of the 27000-series (in particular 207702, 27005, 27010, 27017 and 27018, 27036 parts 5 and 6, 30120
 and 38500) and that may involve liaison with JTC1/WG6 and SC7/WG40.

-         
The Transformational Government Framework TC has had success in the creation and use of a “pattern language” –this proposed TC would seem to occupy the same “level” of policy guidance rather than wanting to create down-in-the-weeds technical
 specifications. Could we maybe consider that a further set of patterns could be developed (at least as one of the proposed specifications) and that could mutually cross-reference with the TGF Patterns (particularly as we may be considering – within TGF and/or
 JTC1 SC?

My 0.02 worth at this early stage

 

Best regards,

Peter

 

Peter F Brown

Independent Consultant

Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform

 

www.peterfbrown.com

P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278

Member of:

Follow me: