2. 22-10-2008
The Theory
3
The Theory
Perfect Engine 0 Friction
Perfect Market 0 Negotiation
Perfect SOA 0 Discontinuity
4
2
3. 22-10-2008
The Problem
5
The Public Sector: Disparate Communities
Interactions
Interactions OVERSIGHT
Service Service Service
Community of Interest
HEALTH IMMIGRATION
Service Service Service Interactions Service Service Service
Community of Interest
Community of Interest
POLICING
Service Service Service Service
Community of Interest
Key Challenges:
Trust (Internal & External)
Jurisdictional
Communities of Interest are usually
circumscribed by government departments.
Disparate: fundamentally unique
6
3
4. 22-10-2008
The Simple Company: Distinct Communities
Executive
Service Service Service
Community of Interest
Product Sales &
Development Interactions Marketing
Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Interest Community of Interest
Manufacturing
Service Service Service
Community of Interest
Key Challenges:
Market Responsiveness
Financial
Communities of Interest are usually
circumscribed by functional departments.
Distinct: different in nature or quality
7
The Complex Conglomerate: Disjoint Communities
Executive
Service Executive
Service
Service
Super Executive
Service Executive
Community of Interest Service
Service
Service Service Service
Product Service Executive
Community of Interest Service
Service
Sales &
Development Interactions Serviceof Interest Service
Community Marketing
Executive
Product Service
Sales &
Service
Development
Service Service Service
Interactions Serviceof Interest Service
Community
Service
Marketing
Executive
Service
Community of Interest
Product Service
Community of Interest Service&
Sales
Community of Interest Service
Service
Development
Service Service
Interactions Serviceof Interest Service
Community
Service
Marketing
Executive
Product Service
Community of Interest Service&
Sales
Community of Interest Service
Service
Development
Service
Manufacturing Interactions Service Service
Marketing
Product Service Executive
Community of Interest Service
Service
Community of Interest Service Community of Interest Service&
Sales
Service ServiceManufacturing
Development
Service Service Service
Service Service
Interactions Serviceof Interest Service
Community Marketing
Product Service
Community of Interest Service&
Sales
CommunityCommunity of Interest Service
Service Interest Service
of Service
ServiceManufacturing
Development Service
Interactions
Service
Community of Interest
Service
Marketing
Product Community of Interest Service&
Sales
CommunityCommunity of Interest Service
Service Interest Service
of Service
ServiceManufacturing
Development Service
Interactions
Service Service
Marketing
Product Community of Interest Service&
Sales
CommunityCommunity of Interest Service
Service Interest Service
of Service
ServiceManufacturing
Development Service
Interactions
Service Service
Marketing
CommunityCommunity of Interest Service
Service Interest Service
of Service Community of Interest Service
ServiceManufacturing
Service Service Service
CommunityCommunity of Interest Service
of Interest Community of Interest
ServiceManufacturing
Service
ServiceManufacturing
Community of Interest Service
Service
Community of Interest Service
Service Service
Community of Interest Key Challenges:
Management & Control
Communities of Interest are usually
Cultural
circumscribed by individual companies.
Disjoint: separate or disconnected
8
4
5. 22-10-2008
End Result: Localization
Registry/Repository
Transformation Localized syntax
Using ESBs Routing enterprises Localized nomenclature
Localized semantics
that provide… Reliable Messaging
Standardized Interfaces
end up with Vendor influences
Interoperability challenges
Orchestration Engine
Connectors & Adapters
Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales &
Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing
Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions
Service Service Service Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
Interest
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing
Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
9
The Solution
10
5
6. 22-10-2008
Ontology: Definition
“An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.
The term is borrowed from philosophy, where an ontology is a systematic account of
Existence. For knowledge-based systems, what “exists” is exactly that which can be
represented. When the knowledge of a domain is represented in a declarative formalism,
the set of objects that can be represented is called a universe of discourse. This set of
objects, and the describable relationships among them, are reflected in the representational
vocabulary with which a knowledge-based program represents knowledge. Thus, we can
describe the ontology of a program by defining a set of representational terms. In such an
ontology, definitions associate the names of entities in the universe of discourse (e.g.,
classes, relations, functions, or other objects) with human-readable text describing what the
names are meant to denote, and formal axioms that constrain the interpretation and well-
formed use of these terms”
Source: “A translation approach to portable ontology specifications”, Tom Gruber,
Knowledge Acquisition 5, (1993) pp. 199-220
This definition, although debatable, is satisfactory for the purposes of our discussion.
11
Layered Ontological Overlay
Common Ontology
Shared Ontology Shared Ontology
Local Local Local Local Local
Ontology Ontology Ontology Ontology Ontology
Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales & Product Sales &
Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing Development Marketing
Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions
Service Service Service Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
Interest
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing
Service Service Service
Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service
Community of Community of Community of Community of Community of
Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest
12
6
7. 22-10-2008
Ontological Framework
Analysis Phase Synthesis Phase Design& Build Phase
Key Stakeholders Enterprise Vision
& Influencers
Exec Model of Common
Services
Depts
Modeling
Projects Group
Other Formal
Mediation
Areas. Common Service
Services
Description
Standards
Bodies
Vendor Governance
“Chaos” “Consistent Structure” “Order”
13
Analysis: Service Concept Exposition
Ambiguous Service Descriptions
Enterprise-wide Information
Exec Models Problem Space
Exec Dept
Dept-specific
Business
Depts
Logic
Service Concept
Service X
Project-specific
Extraction
Service
Projects
Descriptions
Service Y
Consider others
Other Process
Areas Models
Vendor Standard
Guided by
Standards Reference
Body Models Service Z
Dependencies
Vendor Service
Project
Architectures
“Chaos”
14
7
8. 22-10-2008
Synthesis: Consistent Service Representation
Classification of
Common Service Model of Common Services Formal Description
Components
Synthesis of Service Concepts
of Common
Exec Dept Services
Service X
Service Y
Standar
Vendor
d
Service Z
Semantically Consistent Machine-understandable
Description of Service Types Representation of
Project
and Components Service Components
“Consistent Structure”
15
Design & Build: Service Interoperability
Platform-specific Implementations
Service X
Automated Mediation
Capability Client X
Successful
Exchange of
Information
Client Y
Consistent Consistent Data
Semantics Interpretation Service Y
Service
Interoperability
A community can
Service effectively interpret
Descriptions information and interact Client Z
successfully in a
completely automated way
with another community or
environment
“Order”
16
8
9. 22-10-2008
Issues
17
Issues
1. Ownership of the design-time interpretation capability can
be problematic.
• Knowledge is power
• Monarchy or democracy
2. Where does the run-time translation execution lie?
• Centralized, distributed, shared,…
3. How are conflicts resolved?
• Jurisdictional, human behavioural,…
4. Can inconsistencies be resolved in an automated way?
• Rules - both static and dynamically generated,…
5. Technical interoperability.
• E.g.. is XML (RDF, OWL,…) enough?
6. Semantic interoperability with outside partners.
• How much human modeling effort is required to bring a new
community onboard?
9
10. 22-10-2008
Implications
19
Complexity Reduction: Amdahl‟s Law
Amdahl's law, (Gene Amdahl, 1967)
Named after computer architect Gene Amdahl,
is used to find the maximum expected
improvement to an overall system when only
part of the system is improved. It is often used
in parallel computing to predict the theoretical
maximum speedup using multiple processors.
Source: www.wikipedia.com
If S is the fraction of a calculation that is serial and (1-S) the fraction that can be
parallelized, then the greatest speedup that can be achieved using P processors is:
1
(S + (1-S) / P)
which has a limiting value of 1/S for an infinite number of processors.
Source: www.phy.duke.edu
20
10
11. 22-10-2008
Extensions to Amdahl‟s Law
Can we update Amdahl’s law to include complex
service orchestrations?
(From a linear to a multi-dimensional perspective)
Can we then calculate the reduction in complexity
of a system using a framework of consistent
service descriptions?
(What efficiencies do we gain)
Finally, based on the reduction of a system’s
complexity, can we calculate the reduction of
discontinuity of an entire environment?
(What controls are now implicit)
21
Final Thoughts
22
11
12. 22-10-2008
Mapping to Maslow‟s Hierarchy of Needs
Needs Notional Service Types Tomorrow
Self Actualization Abstraction Adaptive,
& Autonomic, &
Continuity Self-Perpetuating
Aesthetic & Cognitive Wisdom Knowledge
knowledge, understanding, &
goodness, justice, beauty, order Reasoning
Time
Esteem Distinction Differentiation
competence, approval, recognition
Belongingness & Love Community Community of Interest
affiliation, acceptance, affection
Safety Growth Enterprise
security, physiological safety
Physiological Survival Infrastructure Yesterday
food, drink, air
23
The Future
As we move from Enterprise SOA to an SOA
Marketplace, the commoditization of services
will force the creation of a
generalized ontological overlay
Enterprise SOA SOA Marketplace
SOA Continuum
- Organizational - - Whole-of-Environment -
Organizational efficiencies
leading to improved Dynamic arbitrage between
performance Source: William A. Murray service supply and demand
24
12
