• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
 WSO2 and Agile Path - How the WSO2 Governance Registry is being used for a key air force program
 

WSO2 and Agile Path - How the WSO2 Governance Registry is being used for a key air force program

on

  • 873 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
873
Views on SlideShare
818
Embed Views
55

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
34
Comments
1

1 Embed 55

http://wso2.com 55

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

     WSO2 and Agile Path - How the WSO2 Governance Registry is being used for a key air force program WSO2 and Agile Path - How the WSO2 Governance Registry is being used for a key air force program Presentation Transcript

    • Governance Registry In Practice AgilePath Corporation 38 Merrimac Street Suite 201 Newburyport, MA 01950 www.agile-path.com November, 2013 Copyright © 2013 AgilePath Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary and Confidential www.agile-path.com
    • Housekeeping   •  Welcome   •  The  Usual  Concerns   –  Ques2ons  and  Answers   –  Addi2onal  Materials   –  Copies  of  Slides   •  Presenter:   Ø   Kevin  King,  Vice  President  for  Client  Delivery  at  AgilePath   Over  20  years  in  Solu2on  Delivery  in  Financial  Services  and  Healthcare   domains  before  joining  AgilePath  three  years  ago   Ø Senaka  Fernando,  Senior  Technical  Lead  at  WSO2   Member  of  WSO2  since  2009,  focused  on  the  WSO2  Governance  Registry   and  WSO2  Cloud  Services  Gateway   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 2
    • Agenda   •  •  •  •  •  •  Who  is  AgilePath?   Why  a  Service  Registry?   Selec2on  of  a  Registry  Tool   Extending  the  WSO2  Model   WSO2  Vision  for  Governance  Registry   Q&A   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 3
    • AgilePath:  More  Than  10  Years  of  Innova2on   •  Founded  by  Eric  Marks  in  2003,  AgilePath  brings  industry  innova2on  and   thought  leadership  to  our  clients.   •  AgilePath  Corpora2on  delivers  management  and  technology  consul2ng   services  based  on  AgilePath’s  Playbook™  methodologies  for  SOA,  Cloud   Compu2ng,  Enterprise  Governance,  Legacy  PorYolio  Moderniza2on  and   Mobile-­‐Social-­‐Cloud  Fusion.   •  AgilePath  provides  vendor-­‐independent  solu2ons  and  technical  services  to   accelerate  business  results  through  superior  technology  adop2on.   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 4
    • AgilePath  (cont’d)   •  AgilePath  provides  services  focused  on  today’s  technology  challenges:   –  Next  Gen  Architecture  (Social,  Mobile,  Cloud),    Cloud  Compu2ng   –  Service  Oriented  Architectures  &  Business  Process  Modeling   –  Integra2on,  Legacy  Migra2on   •  Established  reputa2on  with  F100/F500      and  Public  Sector  Clients   –  Governance  frameworks  and  implementa2ons   –  Cloud  Architecture  and  Legacy  System  Migra2on  strategies   •  Cueng  edge  innova2ons  that  accelerate  2me  to  market,  reduce   business  and  IT  costs,  and  improve  efficiency   –  Pioneering  governance  and  modeling  solu2ons   –  AgileQuad™  Modeling  PlaYorm  (PaaS):  Expedite  Solu2on  Time  to  Market,  Agile   Development   –  Governance  PaaS    for  Cloud,  SOA,  Governance  Managed  Services:  Reduce  Cost  of   Opera2ons   •  Recently  joined  WSO2  Community  Partner  Program   AgilePath  delivers  strategic  insight  coupled  with  technology  implementa2on   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 5
    • Representa2ve  AgilePath  Clients   •  US  Air  Force   •  •  Marine  Corps   •  •  Military  Health   •  Services  (MHS)   •  NGA   •  •  ODNI   •  •  NSA   •  •  State  of  California   •  USTransComm   •  •  @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 6 WalMart   Staples   Kaiser   Permanente   Federal  Express   Intel  Corpora2on   Mohawk  Fine   Papers   GE  Healthcare   Yale  University  
    • AgilePath  Core  Prac2ces   Governance IT,  EA,  Data,  SOA,  Cloud   Governance   Enterprise  Governance     Governance  &  Managed   Outsourcing   Compliance  &  Risk   Services   Change  Management  &   Mentoring   Dashboard  &  Metrics   Strategic Alignment Technology SOA,  BPM  &  IntegraDon   Cloud  CompuDng     Enterprise  &  Data   Architecture   Data  InnovaDon:  Data   Science  &  Big  Data   Legacy  Asset  MigraDon  &   ModernizaDon   Capability   DecomposiDon   Systems  Engineering   SoIware  Development   Architectures   | www.agile-path.com Business  &  Technology   Governance   Strategic  SoluDon  Modeling   Alignment   Staffing  Services   OrganizaDonal  Design   Technology   Gen   Fusion  &  Next   @agilepathcorp Service  Registry   Fits  Here   7
    • Convergence  of  Technology  and  Governance   Cloud   SOA  &   Service   Registry   Social   Media   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com Mobile     8
    • SOA  or  Services-­‐Based  Architecture  is  Crucial   •  "We have learned that about 70 percent of the work in successfully adopting a service-based architecture lies in defining and implementing the governance model." - internal white paper, Intel Corp. •  In our experience: one business unit won’t fund all reusable services. The Funding Models are antiquated in most organizations yet they are a critical component for the success of SOA, Cloud, Mobile and Enterprise Technology requirements. Gartner:  “Can’t  Do  Cloud  Without  SOA”   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 9
    • Characteris2cs  of  a  Service  Repository   DefiniDon:  A  central  ‘database’  that  includes  ar2facts  for  all  services  planned  for  development,  in   development,  in  use  and  re2red     CharacterisDcs:   •  The  registry  is  the  driver  of  a  “Catalog”  of  Services   •  Searchable  by  service  consumers  and  providers   –  Service  registra2on  is  performed  by  service  owners   –  SOA  COE  ensures  SLAs  are  implemented  and  agreed  upon  before  services  are  in  produc2on  and   consumers  implemented   •  It  enforces  service  design-­‐2me  policies   •  Service  meta-­‐data  is  updated  throughout  the  SDLC  and  includes  content  from  the  Business   Owner,  Development  Owner,  and  Opera2ons  /  Deployment  Owner   –  –  –  –  –  –  •  Interface  defini2ons  (e.g.  opera2ons,  XSD,  sample  XML  messages)   Security  mechanisms  used/employed  by  the  service  along  with  any  access  criteria  and  restric2ons   Relevant  design  documents  or  links  to    them   Business/func2onal  behavior   Development  URLs  where  appropriate   Sample  consumer  code   Registry  provides  support  for  and  iden2fica2on  of  composite  services   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 10
    • Actors  In  The  Service  Lifecycle   •  Service  Registry  Actors   –  Business  owner  -­‐  manages  requirements  and  change  requests   –  Service  development  owner  -­‐  develops  and  maintains  the  service   –  Service  opera2ons/deployment  owner  -­‐  manages  the  service  when   deployed   •  Lifecycle  Actors   –  Business  –  manages  priori2es,  requirements,  change  requests   –  SOA  Working  Group  –  enforces  standards,  governance,  facilitates   iden2fica2on   –  SOA  Center  of  Excellence  –  handles  excep2ons  and  escala2ons   –  Service  Provider  –  typically  source  system  owner,  leads  support  efforts   and  manages  capacity   –  Service  Consumer  –  the  user  of  the  service,  can  be  a  human  or   applica2on  but  every  applica2on  must  have  human  POC   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 11
    • Tac2cal  Lifecycle  Processes/Rela2onships   Identify Projects & Programs Business Prioritization Enterprise Architecture Process Potential Service Requirement Identified SOA Working Group SOA COE Service Candidate ID Service Modeling Service Design Service Development QA / Testing Service Consumer Initiate New Potential Service Request Design-Time Governance | www.agile-path.com Run-Time Governance Deploy Management/ Monitoring Consume / Reuse Service Discovery @agilepathcorp Funding and Budgeting Service Portfolio Management Service  Repository  Process  Begins   Design-Time Governance Service Provider Service Qualification 12 Run-Time Governance
    • Process  for  Registry  Entry  Crea2on  /  Update   Governance Process Triggers, Events New Candidate Identified and Verified Pre-conditions •  Service Candidate Identified •  Agreement that Capability is required Candidate   Iden2fica2on   Major Process Steps Candidate  Capability   Iden2fied   Governance Boards Project  or  Service  SDLC   Discovery   SDLC  Phase  Change   Service  Design   Change   Key Policies Enforced Business  Sponsor  /   Capability  Domain   Owner   Create  New  Registry  Entry   Update  Registry  Entry   Throughout  SDLC   •  SOA First •  Re-Use •  Complexity Reduction •  P2P Elimination •  Data Governance Iden2fy  and  Maintain  List   of  Consumers   Plan  for  Version   Management  and   Re2rement   Portfolio Mgmt. Process Publish, Discover, Register Service Consumption Modeling Service Discovery @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com SOA  Center  of   Excellence   Enterprise  or  Domain   Architecture  Office   Overview   Registry  Entry  CreaDon  and  Update  Process:   This  process  describes  the  process  for   crea2ng  a  new  capability  in  the  Registry  and   maintenance  of  the  content.  This  is   complimentary  to  the  SDLC,  Consumer  and   Provider  processes.     Example:  Capability  Candidate  is  iden2fied   during  Modeling  and  Decomposi2on  process.   The  Candidate  may  not  be  completed   development  for  several  months.   Input:  There  is  a  candidate  capability   iden2fied.     Summary  Steps:  A  capability  candidate  is   iden2fied  and  needs  to  be  verified  that  a   similar  capability  does  not  already  exist.  If   one  is  close,  then  the  request  should  be  for   an  enhancement  /  new  version  of  the   exis2ng  capability.  If  one  does  not  exist,  the   request  is  for  a  new  capability.  As  soon  as  the   need  for  a  new  capability  is  confirmed,  the   candidate  should  be  registered  with  minimal   data  in  the  Registry.  As  the  capability   proceeds  through  the  SDLC  process,  the   Registry  should  be  updated  with  details  as   they  are  known.  Preliminary  content  is   acceptable  as  long  as  it  is  clearly  noted.  The   progression  from  planning  to  development   to  tes2ng  and  ul2mately  Produc2on  is   indicated  through  the  SDLC  Phase  or  Status   field  in  the  Registry.     Output:  The  capability  is  created  and   maintained  in  the  Registry.   Internal reference: L07.02 13
    • Process  for  Discovery   Governance Process Triggers, Events New    Capability   Approved   Process for Discovery Pre-conditions •  Capability has been added to or updated in Registry Major Process Steps Registry  Is  Accessible   Change  in  Registry   Content   Change  in  Solu2on   Design   Key Policies Enforced •  SOA First •  Re-Use •  Complexity Reduction •  P2P Elimination •  Publishing •  Registration SDLC  Phase  Gate   or  Milestone   Achieved   Capability  Iden2fied  as   “Needed”   Prospec2ve  Consumer   conducts  “Discovery”   Exact  or  Near  Match   Found   No  Match  Found   Realization, Utilization, Re-Use Portfolio Mgmt. Process Service Identification Publish Requirement  or  Design   Change  in  Current  Project,   Trigger  Discovery   Discovery Excep2on  &  Escala2on   process  as  needed     Governance Boards Self-­‐Governance   Domain  Working   Group   Enterprise  or  Domain   Architecture  Office   Development   Manager,  Technical   Lead   Overview   Process  for  Discovery.  Process  for  searching   meta-­‐data  in  the  registry  to  uncover  a   capability.     NOTE:  This  can  be  done  through  a  registry   tool  by  no2fying  previously  registered   consumers,  those  consumers  who  have   contracts  to  consume  it  and  through  other   internal  organiza2on  mechanisms  (ex.   development  mee2ngs,  wikis,  etc.).     Input:    There  is  a    new  capability  iden2fied   OR  a  change  to  an  exis2ng  capability  entry  in   the  registry.    There  are  known  consumers   iden2fied  in  the  registry  (either  actual  or   poten2al).     Excep2on:  Consumer  required  to  consume   new  version  of  exis2ng  capability.   Summary  Steps:  Search  is  by  keyword  or   other  registry  schema  element  in  order  to   obtain  a  list  of  poten2al  capabili2es  that  will   meet  the  need.  Person  conduc2ng  the   search  compares  the  return  list  with  the   required  func2onality  to  determine  if  there   is  an  exact,  near,  or  no  match.  When  an   exact  match  is  found,  follow  L7.5;  if  a  near   match  is  found,  follow  L7.5  and  nego2ate   with  the  provider  to  execute  L8.2;  if  no   match  is  found,  work  with  the  Architecture   Team  to  iden2fy  a  provider  who  can  then   follow  L7.2  and  add  the  capability  to  the   registry     Output:  Updated  list  of  consumers;  new   capability  added  to  Registry.   Internal reference: L07.04 @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 14
    • Registry  Process  Aligns  with  SDLC  Process   Service Portfolio Management Catalog   Ac2ons   SDLC   Provider   Ac2vi2es   •  Update Catalog Content •  Perform Service o Preliminary Architecture Discovery o Preliminary Payload •  Create Registry Schema Entry o Define SLA Content o Name •  Status = In Development o Description •  Register Consumers o Owner o Domain •  Start Service Mgmt •  Register Consumers Concept   •  Perform Architecture Assessment •  “Business” Justification •  Perform Existing Service Analysis •  Begin Formal Development •  Update Catalog Content o Final Architecture o Final Payload Schema o Final Service Operations o Final SLA details •  Status = In Development •  Status = In Test •  Register Consumers •  Update Catalog •  Confirm and validate all Catalog Artifacts are final versions. •  Status = In Production •  Register Consumers Develop   Launch   DefiniDon  /   Planning   •  Define Service Architecture •  Technical Design & Technical Requirements •  Build Service •  Define Functional Service •  Perform QA Testing, Description including System and •  Complete Funding Request Integration Testing •  Perform Service Modeling and Design •  Implement Versioning •  Confirm Service Qualification •  Perform Release Management •  Consumer Management •  Issue Resolution •  Change Management •  SLA Management •  Version / Retirement Planning •  Metrics Reporting •  Status o In Production o Retired o Deprecated •  Register Consumers Support   •  Perform Operational & SLA Monitoring •  Performance Monitoring •  Security Monitoring •  Capacity Management Internal reference: L07.02 @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 15
    • Example:  US  Air  Force  Program  Service  Registry   •  AgilePath  is  engaged  in  a  moderniza2on  program  for  a  global   US  Air  Force  enterprise  system   •  Our  responsibility  is  implemen2ng  SOA  Governance  for  the   System  Integrator,  suppor2ng  3rd  Party  solu2on  development   and  tes2ng   •  AgilePath  is  responsible  for  enforcement  of  service  lifecycle   governance  across  development  and  tes2ng  environments   •  AgilePath  is  also  filling  the  role  of  Service  Registry  training  and   Tier  1  end  user  support  for  customer  requirements   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 16
    • Program  Service  Registry  Requirements   ü  Import  of  XLS  style  data   ü  Define,  Import  and  Export  AF  specific  service  meta-­‐data   ü  Ability  to  filter  services  by  site  or  by  source  system   ü  Access  based  on  role   ü  On-­‐site  implementa2on  but  accessible  by  3rd  par2es   ü  Service  Lifecycle  Management     ü  No  “heavy”  vendor  overhead  or  vendor  lock-­‐in   ü  Design-­‐2me  unlinked  from  run-­‐2me   ü  No  ‘linking’  across  environments  or  to  external  vendor  sites   ü  Flexibility  for  customiza2on     @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 17
    • Managed  Service  Documenta2on  Workflow   Architects Testers Us e   &   ate Up d d Up Use  &   Update at e Developers   e  & Us Identify   Services  &   Functions Service  &   Function Trackers Use  &  Update Populates Support XLS-based Service   Registry Li e   vic er Site  Specific   Services ll  S st ll  S st Fu Fu i e  L vic er Service   Catalog EVTS   Export Site  X Legend:  UDDI  Registries Security   Domain   “A” @agilepathcorp Security   Button Domain   “B” | Security   Domain   “C” Security   Domain   “D” www.agile-path.com Summary  Steps:     1.  A  service  candidate  is  iden2fied  and  the  user   queries  the  Service  Registry…   a)  If  a  service  is  found  that  meets  the   requirements,  request  consumer   registra2on;   b)  If  there  is  a  similar  but  not  sufficient  service,   request  an  enhancement  /  new  version  of   the  exis2ng  service;   c)  If  one  does  not  exist,  request  a  new  service.     2.  For  a  new  service,  the  candidate  service  is   registered  with  minimal  data  in  the  Service   Registry.     3.  As  the  service  is  matured  and  proceeds  through   the  SDLC  process,  the  Registry  is  updated  with   details  as  they  become  available.       Preliminary  content  is  acceptable  as  long  as  it  is  clearly   noted.  The  service  progression  from  planning  to   development  to  tes2ng  and  ul2mately  Produc2on  is   indicated  through  a  Service  Status  field  and  Service   Lifecycle  state  in  the  Service  Registry.   18
    • Vendor  Assessment  Process   •  We  used  our  standard  Vendor  Assessment   Process  to  evaluate  poten2al  Registry  Products   •  Tested  and  evaluated  8  vendor  products,   scoring  each  with  a  1-­‐5  ra2ng  across  6   categories  comprising  29  different  criteria.   •  Category  and  criteria  items  were  provided  by   AgilePath  and  individual  weigh2ng  of  items  was   determined  by  analyzing  customer  criteria  and   requirements.     @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 19
    • Customer  Requirements  Mapped  To  AP  Scoring   Customer  DescripDon  /  Requirement   Maps  to  AP  Criteria   Category   Web-­‐based  user  interface  easily  accessible  through   On-­‐site  /  Installed  Applica2on  or  Cloud   Install   Portal  or  intranet.   Hosted   Easy  to  populate  and  usable  to  the  end  consumer   Import  /  Export  to  XLS   User   Advanced  search  capability  (non-­‐linear  queries,   Robust  Keyword  Search  /  Discovery   User   more  than  just  search  on  columns).   Across  all  meta-­‐data  fields   There  are  frequent  requests  for  a  Service  Catalog   Customizable  Service  Provider   Must  Have  Feature   related  to  a  specific  build.    Where  is  the  SC  for  Build   workflow   1?    Build  2?   Each  build  is  a  source  of  services  informa2on.   Service  Lifecycle  Management   Must  Have  Feature   Ability  to  add,  change,  edits  and  customize  service   Support  for  customizable  meta-­‐data   Content   metadata.   fields  and  tags   Simultaneous  edi2ng  capability  with  row-­‐level   Full  audit  log  to  track  changes   Security   locking.   Design-­‐2me/Run-­‐2me  Synchroniza2on   Run-­‐2me  and  Design-­‐2me  Instances   Install   Support  for  data  import/export  func2onality  and   Import  /  Export  to  XLS   User   possibly,  ability  to  interface  with  CMDB.   Ability  to  track  service  pedigree.   Version  Differen2a2on   Must  Have  Feature   Service  Consumer  registra2on  and  maintenance  of   Consumer  Registra2on  and  Status   Must  Have  Feature   consumer  auributes  with  high  data  integrity.   Service  usage  count  in  number  of  consumers.   Consumer  Registra2on  and  Status   Must  Have  Feature   Service  Depreca2on  Status  -­‐  Which  services  are   Version  Differen2a2on   Must  Have  Feature   planned  to  be  deprecated  in  the  next  6  months?   This  would  enable  planning  for  service  replacement.   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 20
    • Standardized  Scoring   Values   0   1   2   3   4   5   •  •  •  •  •  •  DefiniDon   Not  evaluated   Does  not  meet  requirement   Par2ally  meets  the  requirements   Sufficiently  meets  the  requirement   Meets  requirement  and  has  few  addi2onal  capabili2es   Significantly  exceeds  requirement  in  this  area   Each criteria is “scored” using standard point values Individual criteria values are ‘rolled up’ to determine the category score Category scores are ‘rolled up’ to determine a weighted score Raw point totals, unweighted, are accumulated for reference Results automatically adjust. We re-do evaluations for new vendor releases The same AgilePath resource evaluated all products within a specific category to eliminate bias and personal preferences @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 21
    • Vendors  Scored  Across  Mul2ple  “Categories”   Major  Category   Content   Weight   DefiniDon   15%   Is  there  flexibility  in  underlying  content,  predefined   values?   Install   10%   Requirements  that  are  important  to  understand  the   technical  requirements   User   20%   User  experience  requirements  to  ensure  it  meets  the   customer  need   Security   Lifecycle   Miscellaneous   20%   25%   10%   Fundamental  site  and  access  security  requirements   Requirements  focused  on  lifecycles  or  processes   Features  that  would  enhance  the  customer   implementa2on   •  Weights are tuned based on client requirements •  Within each category, we also give a client-specific weight to each criteria •  At each level, the individual weights add up to 100% @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 22
    • Categories  Break  Down  into  Mul2ple  Criteria   Content   Support  for  customizable  meta-­‐data   fields  and  tags   Support  for  Links  across  internal   network   Support  for  Links  to  external  /  public   websites   Support  for  Composite  Services  and   Linking  to  Component  Services   Viewpoint:  Is  there  flexibility  in  underlying  content,   Weight  predefined  values?   45%   Ability  for  client  to  define  meta-­‐data  fields  for  quick   reference  content   20%   Ability  for  client  to  link  content  within  company   network  (ex.  Link  to  XML  Schema  in  source  code   repository)   20%   Ability  to  link  to  external  website  for  content  (ex.  WS-­‐ Security  standards)   15%   Easily  iden2fied  composite  services  and  ability  to  trace   back  to  component  services  for  related  content   Viewpoint:  these  requirements  ensure  the  product   User   Weight   meets  the  basic  customer  need   Import  /  Export  to  XLS   20%   Can  the  applica2on  import  or  export  data  to  /  from  the   repository  for  easy  popula2on,  backup,  migra2on   capability?  Is  it  a  selec2ve  export?   Robust  Keyword  Search  /  Discovery   25%   Does  the  applica2on  support  key  word  search  across   Across  all  MetaData  fields   custom  meta-­‐data  fields?   Simple  Keyword  Search  /  Discovery   15%   Does  the  search  feature  search  free  form  descrip2ve   across  descrip2on  field   text?   Ability  to  iden2fy  service   20%   Does  the  applica2on  show  which  services  are  consuming   dependencies   other  services,  which  consumers  are  using  which   services?  Bonus:  Does  it  build  a  "mind-­‐map"  style   diagram  of  the  environment?   Version  Differen2a2on   20%   Does  the  applica2on  support  one  or  mul2ple  versions  of   services?  Does  it  facilitate  version  transla2on  for   request/response  messages?  Are  re2red  service  versions   accessible  via  search,  view  for  reference?   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 23
    • Vendor  Assessments  Presented  to  Client   Weighted   Average   Scoring   Average   Total     Points   WSO2  Governance  Registry   3.29   3.24   94   SoywareAG  CentraSite   3.35   3.17   92   IBM  WSRR   3.09   3.07   89   HP  Sys2net   2.91   2.90   84   SOA  Soyware  Repository  Manager   2.83   2.79   81   Oracle  Service  Registry   2.75   2.72   79   Jboss  Enterprise  SOA  PlaYorm   2.55   2.59   75   Mule  Galaxy   2.52   2.55   74   Vendor  /  Product  Name   •  Three scores generated for each vendor: weighted average, straight average and total points •  Conducted a virtual “bake off” with top two vendors •  Bake-off: WebEx style demo of 2 use cases created by the customer and provided to the vendor. •  Vendor conducted the walk-through of their tool directly with the customer. •  Prior assessment activities were driven by AP to identify top two vendors. •  All results were reviewed with the client prior to selection to ensure transparency and that scoring was done to their specifications. •  Client selected WSO2 Governance Registry Product @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 24
    • Extending  the  WSO2  Data  Model   •  To  support  the  requirements,  we  extended   the  core  Governance  Registry  Database:     –  Modeled  Air  Force  /  DoD  specific  meta-­‐data   •  Ex.  custom  risk  exposure  fields,  mul2ple  levels  of   system  iden2fica2on  (type  of  system,  sub-­‐system,  etc.),   related  customer  use  case  (ex.  Targe2ng)   –  Custom  tables  have  primary  key  /  foreign  key   rela2onships  that  we  needed  to  enforce   •  We  will  be  building  a  custom  extract  for  Risk   Exposure  for  services  connec2ng  across   firewalls   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 25
    • Extended  Data  Concepts   •  Requirement to support custom fields •  This outline helped ‘demonstrate’ those fields and their relationships •  Within each Asset Type, there are 1+ related fields and tables @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 26
    • Data  Concepts  Translated  to  Rela2onal  Tables   Asset  Type   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Asset  Type   Providing  Component   Asset  Type   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Asset  Type   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Providing  Component   Table   Overview   Overview   Overview     Table   Taxonomy     Table   Technical   Technical   Technical     Table   Miscellaneous   Miscellaneous   Miscellaneous   Element   Name     Version     DescripDon       Element   Keywords       Element   Constraints     Language     Pla]orm       Element   Usage  Fee     ExpiraDon  Date     ReDrement/Decommission  Date     Type   Text  Field   Numeric  Text  Field   Text  Field     Type   Editable  List     Type   Text  Field   Drop-­‐down  Box   MulDple  SelecDon  List     Type   Numeric  Text  Field   Date  Field   Date  Field   •  Relational Tables were designed to maintain the affinity and cardinality of values to the underlying services @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 27
    • Client  Requested  Custom  Report  Required   •  Custom  Field  iden2fies  requirement  for  extract  (if   value  =  Y,  then  include  in  report)   •  Extract  includes  custom  fields  as  well  as  core  WSO2   fields   •  Output  will  be  CSV  and  then  input  into  PPT   •  Report  currently  planned  for  manual  genera2on   monthly  but  may  explore  automa2on  in  the  future   •  Challenge:  Access  to  Business  &  Technical  Resources   that  are  not  co-­‐located  is  slowing  requirements   gathering  and  solu2on  design   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 28
    • Keys  to  our  successful  implementa2on   •  Government  customer  was  comfortable  with   Open  Source  solu2on   •  WSO2  resources  were  helpful  during  sales   cycle  and  with  implementa2on  ques2ons   •  Combined  service-­‐based  solu2on  knowledge   of  System  Integrator  and  AgilePath  was  cri2cal   in  driving  solu2on  analysis  and  design   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 29
    • Governance  Support  Through  Technology   •  Governance  processes  can  be  built  directly   within  the  WSO2  product  for  enforcement   •  Consumer  and  Providers  benefit  from  a   central  Service  Registry   •  User  educa2on  about  Registry  is  s2ll  required   •  SLA  tracking  and  enforcement  can  be   conducted  within  the  WSO2  tool   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 30
    • Summary   •  A  robust,  user  friendly  Service  Registry  is   required  for  the  success  of  SOA  and  Cloud   solu2ons   •  WSO2  Product  met  the  needs  given  its   flexibility,  extendibility  and  licensing  approach   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 31
    • What WSO2 Delivers 32
    • The Governance Registry •  Two Main Aspects •  Resource Repository/Registry •  Governance Framework 33
    • Key Features Key Functionalities, APIs and Extension Points 34
    • Architecture Features – Structure and Composition 35
    • In Action Playing a Vital Role in the Carbon Platform 36
    • What’s Coming Up •  More User-friendly UIs •  Connectors 37
    • Ques2ons   •  Contact  AgilePath  to  help  develop  your  Registry   Implementa9on  Strategy  and  SOA  Solu9on  Design   –  978.462.5737  Office  /  Info@agile-­‐path.com   •  Contact  WSO2  to  learn  more  about  the  Governance   Registry  Tool  and  other  Open  Source  Components   –  hOp://wso2.com/contact/   @agilepathcorp | www.agile-path.com 38
    • AgilePath Corporation 38 Merrimac Street Suite 201 Newburyport, MA 01950 www.agile-path.com Thank you! Copyright © 2013 AgilePath Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary and Confidential www.agile-path.com