<<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>>
We
didn't discuss this on last week's call from my recollection, so now I'm back
at my desk I wanted to add a +1 to Peter's view, notwithstanding what Chris
might have to say.
Chris,
reading this thread, can you tell us what CST's intention/vision was when you
used the tem(s). Does it fall into any of the categories Peter has suggested,
or did you guys have an altogether different position on it?
Cheers
Colin
From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:
peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 4:11 a.m.
To:
david.webber@google.com; 'John Borras'; 'TGF TC List '; 'David
Webber'
Cc: 'Chris Parker'
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF PRIMER - DRAFT
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 17 th 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 17 th
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
Web
www.peterfbrown.com 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
==== CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain
information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are
not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in
error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments. Thank you. ====