Monday, June 6, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Everware-CBDI has announced the immediate availability of the CBDI-SAE UML Profile for SOA V3 (SAE Profile). The SAE Profile makes Model Driven Architecture (MDA) for SOA practical for everyone. Whilst introducing a sensible level of compliance with industry standards such as SoaML, the SAE Profile provides a more extensive and detailed coverage of the complete lifecycle, from business models to deployment. As well as capturing requirements in a precise manner, the ability to model service architectures and service specifications facilitates SOA governance with the production of more formal models and other key deliverables that conform to a detailed meta model.
- Modeling Service Architectures and Service Specifications
- Making MDA for SOA practical for everyone
- Enabling sensible compliance with industry standards such as SoaML
- Facilitating SOA governance, with production of formal SOA models and specifications
The CBDI-SAE UML Profile for SOA V3 is now available for download from the Everware-CBDI website. The profile is available by simple, no cost registration with the CBDI Forum, or login by existing members.
The SAE Profile allows architects and designers to use UML tools such as Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and No Magic Inc's MagicDraw and to create purpose designed, consistent deliverables for SOA.
The SAE Profile is based on the CBDI-SAE methodology which is defined in the CBDI-SAE meta model for SOA. This is a detailed set of meta class models that define SOA concepts at a level of precision suitable for project deliverables. The models are broadly scoped to integrate with architecture, design and solution delivery practices and span the entire life cycle.
Making the CBDI-SAE Meta Model for SOA available as a UML Profile enables users to model SOA design and architecture using diagrams that are UML compliant and to progressively define detailed meta data that can be used directly in key project and governance deliverables including all architecture views, service specifications, implementation, technology and deployment specifications.
A new report “An Introduction to Service Architecture Modeling with the CBDI-SAE UML Profile for SOA V3” provides guidance on how to use the SAE Profile and walks through the process of modeling a service specification architecture.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Many organizations tell us they are classifying SOA as mainstream – that is the architectural pattern and associated technologies are mandated for all projects and programs and strategic applications are progressively being modernized with service interfaces. Further, as organizations’ use of SOA matures, we observe increasing commitment to common, cross-cutting capability and core business services which naturally lead to standardization of the service portfolio.
This progressive maturing of SOA capability requires consistency of approach across disparate programs that facilitates collaboration and effective governance and naturally creates the requirement for standardization of reference models and reference architecture.
Whilst there is a plethora of reference materials from the standards organizations such as OASIS, The Open Group, The OMG and ITIL(OGC) it’s clear that in addition to inconsistency of definitions and expression, most of the standards are abstract and narrowly focused on core concepts and ontology. Whilst these standards are often very useful in guiding conceptual understanding, they may not provide the detailed models on thebroader scope required by practitioners to establish best practices for architecture and solution delivery teams.
What’s required from an SOA reference model:
- a basis for common agreement on concepts across disparate groups that allows sharing of models.
- at a level of detail that is unambiguous and supports tooling. A fully detailed UML model, defined, enumerated and attributed.
- across a scope that supports a typical end to end business project covering: business models, service specification, service implementation, solutions, deployment and runtime, technology, testing, policy and organization.
- an attempt at some level of compliance with the various standards groups, recognizing that there is no single model or agreed ontology, nor standardization of definitions or expression.
In order to support use cases:
- integrate SOA into wider business practices:
- - - - enterprise architecture
- - - - solution architecture
- - - - business modeling
- - - - BPM
- - - - application delivery projects
- support common service definition across ecosystems such as industry groups, supply chains, business partners
- define policy relating to reference model compliance (and thereby support governance of same)
- define required traceability
- support seamless interaction between teams (and parties) carrying out business modelling, service architecture and design, provisioning/procurement, implementation, test, service management and operation
- eliminate ambiguity in service agreements with outsourcing and offshore parties
- support common schema definition for what may be a disparate set of tools being used in modeling, asset management, cataloguing, version and configuration management
- support definition of a set of common and or project specific deliverables across the architecture and delivery life cycle
- support creation of UML Profile or domain specific language (DSL)
The Everware-CBDI SOA meta model attempts to meet the above requirements and support these use cases. You can download the V3 model here.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Last year I set a goal of integrating SAE with other frameworks and standards. Inevitably this has been a considerable task, but to date I am pleased to say we have mapped to the TOGAF 9 framework, and of course aligned the SAE meta model and profile closely with the SoaML standard.
I started to look at the ITIL framework last year, but to be honest found it a slippery beast. But I have now created the time to have another go and I am pleased to report I have this month published guidance on how to use the SAE and ITIL frameworks collaboratively. The issue that I struggled with last year is that ITIL is a highly generic framework. It provides process guidance for service management activity, where the service is almost anything you want it to be. Whilst it is perfectly understandable that the service providers like HP, IBM, TCS et al envisage the scope of their services to be ever expanding, it doesn’t make it easy to get to grips with processes that are reduced to highly generic descriptions.
Further the nomenclature is very hard to work with. Whilst there is an ITIL glossary, there is no meta model, and similar to the Event Architecture space where, last year I also struggled with the Event Processing Glossary[i] for the same reasons, I found lots of inconsistency and no attempt on the part of the ITIL community to address core issues of nomenclature.
The root problem, (there are many more but I will focus on the core issue) is that ITIL describes the service as, “A means of delivering value to Customers by facilitating Outcomes Customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific Costs and Risks”. The term is in direct conflict with the SOA community that has established formal standards backed up by automation around the term Service. However the ITIL community choose to ignore this, leaving their customers to resolve the inevitable confusion.
The IT infrastructure professional makes word associations with Service that go along the lines of Network Service, ERP Service, Desktop Service and so on. Whereas the Application Architect thinks of a Customers Core Business Service, or an Events Service.
The ITIL documentation is really no help. In fact there is a section in the ITIL books headed WHAT ARE SERVICES? Which admits “.. over the years organizations have debated the definition of what is a service”, yet completely fails to provide answers, just generalizations. I have to admit some frustration with this, and it probably caused me to drop the research topic last year. No less than 10 years ago we were grappling with nomenclature in the service domain, and it seems incredible that we should have to repeat the experience.
In consequence, in my work this month on the collaborative use of SAE and ITIL I felt I couldn’t write sensible guidance unless I had some semantic consistency. I have therefore proposed a nomenclature and a simple classification system which I hope will at least avoid senseless time wasting over semantics.
I suggest in context with SAE and ITIL in collaboration, the ITIL service is called an IT Service and the first class SOA concept is called a Service. I have then provided outline meta models for the (ITIL SAE) intersection which is aimed at creating delivery and life cycle consistency.
In my report I do say that “we recommend SAE users adopt this approach as . . . it is essential to have clarity and consistency of core concepts. However we are not wedded to the specific term IT Service, and we will encourage standards organizations to resolve this. So in the meantime local solutions may be preferable. Consequently, if a major service provider chose to substitute the IT prefix with their company or division name, that might actually be a great solution that also representing very effective marketing!”
A wider issue is how and whether we should incorporate the concepts into the SAE meta model without any rigorous work from the ITIL community.
I do believe this is an area where the standards bodies need to undertake some work on an urgent basis, and maybe this needs to happen outside of the ITIL community in order to achieve a sensible result. Meantime, if you follow our advice, you will at least have internal consistency.
ITIL (The IT Infrastructure Library) is becoming widely adopted as the standard for IT Service Management. Described as a service management framework, the service concept at the heart of the ITIL process is about the general capability delivered by a service provider, which might coincidentally include SOA based services amongst the range of components delivered and managed. In this report we provide guidance on how to use the ITIL framework in collaboration with the Service Architecture and Engineering Framework (CBDI-SAE) for the Service Strategy and Design stages, and how to deliver better service management for SOA and modernization programs. By David Sprott
[i] Event Processing Technical Society Glossary