The one place I've actually find Semantic Web to be useful has been in the Wiki space as it enables some more complex "tagging". Free form description is okay, but what you really want is "lob documents" and some decent semantic association.
REST at this level is (IMO) well outside the debate because we are talking about how people find things and not how computers find things. The goal of a decent repository should be to help people find things, and once they've found it to control that interaction. The problem I've found is that repositories major on the later and consider the former to be a liberal arts major. On 09/02/07, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes -- open content model, automatic detection of relationships, hyperlinks, REST architecture, excellent search. This is what differentiates Systinet's repository from the other players. It doesn't have a built-in wiki capability, although it does have a free-form description field for all artifacts. And the content model is extensible, so you could add/extend the description or comments field to allow folks to add more information. IBM also has an open, extensible content model, but it doesn't use a REST architecture, and its search facility is much less powerful. I haven't researched SOA Software, Flashline, and LogicLibrary, so I can't comment on their model and/or search. Infravio and Software AG don't have an open content model. Anne On 2/8/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And for the repository to be more "adhoc" by that I mean that it > should contain different amounts of artefacts and those should be allowed to > take different forms. What I mean by this is how people find things is > often based not on the direct elements that people expect but on a > description or recommendation. I've found that a Wiki acts as a very good > basis for this sort of element. > > As an example, I'm no physics bod but I do know very little about > Feynman Diagrams, but how I remember that very little about Feynman Diagrams > is because of Penguin Diagrams, they describe how basic particle elements > interact and I got into them through the story of the Penguin Diagrams. > > Until I googled for the Penguin Diagrams (which I remembered the picture > for) I'd forgotten that it was just a subset of Feynman Diagrams, if asked > (unlikely but stick with me) for how to represent elementary particle > interactions I'd have told someone to look for Penguin Diagrams. I've often > seen the same in businesses where people have said "Its the thing that DaveC > worked on in 2001" or "God knows what it was called but Mark and Bronwyn > worked on it". > > Google has surely taught the power of finding everything from > unstructured information and association. Is a centralised solution going > to be as good? > > Steve > > > > > On 08/02/07, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hence the need for really good search facilities in the repository. > > > > One thing I predict in the market landscape report is convergence with > > SDLC/IT management systems. Traditionally, a registry has been supplied as > > part of the application platform, but I think that's the wrong perspective > > to take. A registry and/or repository should not be tightly associated with > > a single platform -- your goal is to get everyone in the company to use it > > to enable collaboration regardless of the platform they use to build > > systems. Repository supports development, and then also plays an important > > role in change control. Registry's role comes into play at the point you > > stage a service from development into production, during the configuration > > and provisioning processes. I think both registry and repository should be > > integrated with the CMDB, but neither should use a directory as their data > > store. > > > > Anne > > > > On 2/8/07, Steve Jones < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The bit I'm not sure about in the registry/repository space is how > > > people will find things. Having a "central" repository or even a federation > > > sounds nice architecturally but the key is how will people discover things > > > and understand what is supported and by whom. I've seen some companies > > > create Repository administration or librarian roles and rapidly these pieces > > > become ignored and more adhoc collaboration goes on. > > > > > > Having control is a great thing, but the goal should be to get > > > people to find stuff first, then worry about control second, all too often > > > I've seen similar exercises fail because people put the control hat on and > > > decide that the easiest thing is if no-one finds anything useful. > > > > > > On 07/02/07, Todd Biske < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > One thing that I've blogged about is whether or not the whole > > > > registry/repository arena will bloom (?) into the broader area of metadata > > > > management, which would then start to intrude on areas such as the > > > > Configuration Management Database. It even creates the possibility that > > > > Microsoft's answer to all of this would be something rooted in Active > > > > Directory technology. > > > > > > > > What's everyone's thoughts? Possibility? Is it a natural > > > > extension of the market, or is this a big stretch? > > > > -tb > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Gervas Douglas wrote: > > > > > > > > * Looking forward this year, is there anything we should look for > > > > in the vendor landscape?* > > > > Manes: Microsoft doesn't really have a registry today. Well, > > > > actually they do. They provide one free of charge as part of the Windows > > > > server, but it's what gave UDDI a bad name. It's a bare bones implementation > > > > of UDDI version 2 and nobody in their right mind should ever consider using > > > > it as a real registry. To date, Microsoft hasn't been unwilling to give me > > > > any information about future plans they might have in terms of > > > > registry/repository components, but my guess is at some point they're going > > > > to do something. > > > > > > > > Then SAP hasn't really come out with a cohesive > > > > registry/repository. Actually, let me say this, they've got way too many > > > > registry/repositories, but they haven't come out with a good, understandable > > > > strategy regarding SOA governance. They do have a governance/risk management > > > > solution. They call it GRC, governance, risk management, compliance. But > > > > that's not SOA governance. > > > > > > > > So we still don't know what SAP is going to do. And we still don't > > > > know what Microsoft's going to do.>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
