Talk:Version1
From PGFSOA Wiki
Contents |
Testing the Discussion Capablity
This comment is made w/respect to this major page only.
Adding a second comment
An editor needs to reference the page that they were making comments about. -ph
Adding a comment to this discussion.
The editors can create dialog around any part of the PGFOA content by indicating the nature of their issue, what they propose to add as an edit, and they should provide a clear rationale as to why they think the PGFSOA sould be changed. Minor edits that are grammatical or related to spelling, structure, or proper use of terms, for example, are more straightforward and will require less adjudication. Major changes that effect the correctness of the context or that are introducing new concepts or are challenging existing concepts, should be accompanied by enough background information to sufficiently make the case for a change change (or addition of material is editors feel that the existing content does not serve the topic well.)
Suggested Structural Enhancements
The structural refactoring I'm suggesting we consider as we evolve from the PGFSOA from v1 to v2 would be better integration of the concepts and terms established in the PGFEA. It turns out that this would be a minor change.
We in the FEA CoP all live by the ideas presented in the PGFEA (Baseline, Target, Transistion Strategy, Sequence Plan), so looking at SOA in this way should seem natural to all. This helps address the EB desire to better correlate the PFGSOA with the PGFEA, and it puts our discussion of SOA modernization squarely in that context.
We pursue aspects of Organizational Programmatic Governance in SOE, Composite Application Design approaches in SOA, and required capabilities of Runtime infrastructure in SOI respectively within Baseline/Target/TransitionStrategy/SequencePlan, and for each of these, we think CCAR - Context/Challenge/Action/Result, which is well established OPM communication best practice.
So 'Baseline' in each of these sections becomes the Context, or what we're faced with in our 'as-is' organizational KPI's, architecture practicioner KSA's, and spaghetti IT infrastructure. Target becomes how we address them, the Challenge - what we need to be doing, in contrast and in comparison with what is going on. Transition Strategy is the Roadmap, it is the vision part of where we're going that guides our Actions. Sequence Plan are the Keys - what to do right now, tomorrow, etc. to pursue the Roadmap and build on Results as we go - it's the mission part of how we achieve the vision of where we want to go. What goes here should have quantifiable metrics that can be used to measure our success!
Here is an example outline of the structural refactoring proposed.
Going forward, I'd also like to explore the use of the Semantic MediaWiki capabilities more, beginning with an OMG Business Motivation Metamodel for the PGFSOA 2.0 and working that into an ontology that will incorporate the terms used in each section, the glossary, etc. and explore the relationship to other related ontologies, like say, TOG's OASIS based SOA Ontology.
George
