Discussions on e-Framework Templates (SUMs, SEs, SGs)
Add discussions or comments to this page. You should propose agreed changes to the templates to the e-Framework editors editor@… .
Table of Contents:
- SUM Template Comments
- Service Expression (SE) Template Comments
- Service Genre (SG) Template Comments
SUM Template Comments
- LyleWinton: The FRED SUM seems to have mixed a lot of Structure (End Point, Supporting, Resources) into Functionality. I can see why Dan has done this, as for implementation they are tightly coupled. The way I see the divide is to take all the higher level stuff (aimed at managers, architects, and business analysts) in Functionality and above (above the technical line) and the technical details in Structure and below, roughly. Phil and subsequently I have been entitling Business Processes then referring to the same titles in both Functionality and Structure. I see the use in this divide as each may have separate interoperability issues (functionality/process based vs. structure/composition based). What do others think?
- We need to see a new version of the FRED SUM. There has been lots of discussion with the FRED team and the latest SUM is a little different. --KERRY
Business Process element
- As a SUM is inherently reusable, including all the BPs that it has or could be used in, would mean that the SUM definition could grow indefinitely large, if all contexts of use are put into the SUM itself. If, on the other hand, a SUM’s BP is restricted to one, it would suggest that the use of the SUM is limited to the first context that it was associated with. I therefore support the proposal that there is provision for a BP as a separate top level element, allowing the SUMs to simply provide pointers to them as contexts of use. The SUM should be understandable from its function. There are also BP terminology problems: in the business world a BP is relatively high level, but in the computing world, BP has been commandeered to mean the technical orchestration of technical services – as in BPEL. In this discussion I think BP is being used with the first meaning as the wider context that makes sense of the SUM’s usage. However, in its technical sense of the coordination of the services that make up the SUM, then yes, the coordination process is an inherent part of the SUM, and should be included. --BILL
Service Expression (SE) Template Comments
- Name: ?
Service Genre (SG) Template Comments
- Name: ?
