FW: [soa-blueprints] Questions to the Group

From Reza Shafii, his email account is having OASIS 
issues so I am forwarding this in...

From: Reza Shafii [mailto:] 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:52 PM
To: 
; 
Cc: Miko Matsumura; 

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

Hello and Happy New 
Year to All,

 

Picking up the thread 
below from last year: One of the ways we could organize ourselves would be to 
use the SOALogic “brand” for all of the Enterprise and Project view 
artifacts/deliverables where as the Generico “brand” could be used for lower 
level artifacts that pertain to the design and architecture of applications, 
services, and shared infrastructure of an SOA.

 

This would flow 
naturally from where we are currently at since the SOALogic initiative has been 
taking a top down approach where as the Generico specs are detailed centric and 
lack a complete high level view. 

In other words the 
SOALogic deliverables would concern themselves with the Enterprise Architecture 
and high level project view of the organization where as the Generico 
deliverables would concern the structure of the lower level service components 
in terms of technical architecture and design. 

 

The first Genrico 
deliverable could concern itself with the existing elements: That is the HR, 
Payroll and the shared/common Security services. In the future we could envision 
“Generico Finance”, “Generico CRM”, “Generico Service Registry”, etc… 
deliverables.

 

I have attached a 
coarse diagram to illustrate this…

 

Regards,

 

Reza

 

 

 

 

From: 
 [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:24 
PM
To: 

Cc: 
; 
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Questions to 
the Group

 

+1

  
-----Original 
  Message-----
From: John Harby 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:05 
  AM
To: Marchant, Dan 
  R.
Cc: 
  ; 
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,  
  <> 
  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:]
Sent: 
  Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:42 AM 
To: John Harby; Marchant, Dan 
  R.
Cc: 
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? 
  

Miko

       -----Original 
  Message-----
       From: John Harby 
  [mailto:]
       
  Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 8:39 AM
       To: 
       
  Cc: 
       
  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,  <> 
  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

               
  Thoughts,

               
  Dan

  
 

SOA Blueprint Org.ppt