It looks like New Year is at the door-step... Are we in the Prediction/Forecast mood already? :-)
- Michael P.S. How about "all new things are just well forgotten old things"? Let's replace PCs with the "remote terminals to the Cloud" and remove "service desk/helpdesk" guys from our floors (well they, probably will hide in the Cloud, but it will be the Cloud Problem) BTW, does PaaS stand for Process-as-a-Service? This becomes similar to the picture where a big brother buys a candy for the little brother, unwraps it, and even eats it ... on behalf of the little brother - Michael ----- Original Message ---- From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:06:28 PM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: ITIL & SOA Governanc I'm not going to say that ITIL is a reactionary command and control system invented to address a pretty fundamentally broken system of managing infrastructure and the CMDB is a vendor driven mish mash of products designed to maximize software license footprint on fairly tired system management console businesses. Oh wait, I just did. =) Perhaps that statement is a bit strong. ITIL actually contains a lot of clues as to where the pain in IT is and as such it's a great tool for battening down the hatches, lowering costs and automating the heck out of your IT infrastructure. Which in this economic climate isnt a bad thing. i just think that we might move towards a more enlightened way to manage infrastructure that's driven from the service consumption side through technologies like virtualization. I guess the over-reliance on root cause analysis and service desk/helpdesk aspects of CMDB always paint for me a picture of techies digging through the wreckage of a crash that already happened. I'd like to see a future where systems can adapt via policy to changes in the consumption patterns. I know it's science fiction today, but with trends in "cloud" computing and PaaS, it wont be 2 years out but certainly within 10. My 2 cents, Miko --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > I solute to Anne on her provision! > - Michael > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 1:31:15 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governanc > > > I also predicted circa 2006 that UDDI and CMDB would converge, > although I wasn't blogging back then, so can't reference an article to > justify my claim. I have a document in the Burton Group library that I > wrote in October 2006 that states: > > "Watch for integration with IT management and governance: A SOA > governance program should be an extension of an enterprise's existing > IT governance program. SOA governance processes should blend naturally > with traditional SDLC and IT management processes. Registry vendors > have yet to deliver integration with configuration management > databases (CMDBs) or IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) systems; however > this type of integration should start to appear in 2007." > > Like Todd, I was a bit overly optimistic. I suspect that lack of > standards for CMDB has constrained it growth into a general-purpose > configuration management system. No one is yet considering the idea of > managing application configuration files (e.g., WAR and EAR config > files), much less service configuration files. CMDB is still pretty > much limited to managing hardware appliances and core application > infrastructure (database, app, and mail servers). It definitely > doesn't get into change and configuration management of software > componentry. > > Comments on Michael's points below... > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote: > > A couple of also interesting (I think) things to add: > > > > 1) with some knowledge and efforts, a UDDI may be used in the same manner as > > LDAP - you will be the master of its meta-data/schema and you will be able > > to store all information needed to "to be able to track a fault/problem all > > the way from the business process down to a switch, network card or a cpu in > > a server and vice versa" via its programmatic (vs. manual) interface > > The UDDI data model is very extensible. You can use a tModel to > represent pretty much any thing or any relationship. So, yes, you > could use UDDI to store all information needed to track a > fault/problem all the way from the business process to a device or > vice versa. But in order for this information to be useful, you would > have to standardize the tModels that capture the information. > Standardization of management information has been attempted many time > before with little success. Think CIM and SML. > > > > > 2) I have not seen or heard of such use of UDDI as I described in 1). > > Probably, Anne will correct me here. Nevertheless, the task "to track a > > fault/problem all the way from the business process down to a switch, > > network card or a cpu in a server and vice versa" is one of the major ones > > on the way to the SO model of the enterprise. I know that IBM hasn't > > included UDDI support into is service registry/repository and offered an > > alternative solution for this > > I have never seen anyone capture this much information in UDDI. The > Systinet-led GIF effort (now led by HP -- see > https://h10078. www1.hp.com/ cda/hpms/ display/main/ hpms_content. jsp?zn=bto& cp=1-11-130- 27^2804_4000_ 100_ _) > defined standard tModels to capture service configuration information > -- i.e., policies -- in order to enable interoperability among > heterogeneous SOA infrastructure components. Quite a few vendors > signed up to participate in GIF, including BEA, AmberPoint, Layer 7, > Parasoft. At one point they had more than a dozen vendors > participating in the effort. But GIF never attempted to capture > configuration information down below the service level. GIF is still > around, but I get the sense that interoperability among heterogeneous > vendor products isn't as high a priority with the vendors as it once > was. > > > > > I agree with Kelly Emo on the mentioned statement: SO registry/repository > > needs some things that CMDB and UDDI include today, especially, with regard > > to governance (policies/procedure s) and operational business service/process > > changes. So, I solute to Todd with his Provision-2006. > > I doubt that CMDB will every be expanded to the point where it > supports design time metadata management. There comes a point where > you really want to separate design time and runtime information > management. SOA repositories should support design-time governance > processes. SOA registries typically support runtime governance > processes (e.g., information exchange among runtime components). I > would still like to see CMDB move up the stack and take over the > runtime management role from SOA runtime registries. Integration among > all these repositories (automatic propagation of information from one > to another as services proceed through their lifecycles) > would be really helpful. > > - Anne > > > > > - Michael > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Dennis Djenfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] se> > > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:45:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governance > > > > The current organization I'm working with are in the progress of upgrading > > from HP SOA Systinet 2.x to 3.0, and there has been a lot of talk about how > > the information in the register/repository could be integrated with a CMDB. > > The IT operation would like to be able to track a fault/problem all the way > > from the business process down to a switch, network card or a cpu in a > > server and vice versa. I haven't seen a fully automated solution to this > > yet, and I haven't had the time to participate in the evaluation of HP SOA > > Systinet 3.0, but it was interesting to read this article, where Kelly Emo > > from HP says: > > > > "The new SOA infrastructure component captures more than UDDI information, > > it encompasses best practices, CMDB information, and sets the stage for a > > wider culture of governance" > > > > http://it.toolbox. com/blogs/ dana-gardners- briefing- direct/with- > > systinet- 30-hp-broadens- soa-governance- role-to-encompas s-services- > > lifecycle- business- processes- it-service- management- 27584 > > > > > > // Dennis Djenfer > > > > > > Todd Biske wrote: > > > > I'm not that familiar with the ITIL v3 processes (just got registered for > > some training in November), but from what I understand of IT Service > > Management, I see no reason why the techniques of service management > > shouldn't be applicable to either IT services (e.g. Build me a new server) > > or business services that are supported by It solutions such as a Web > > Service. > > As for the tooling, I absolutely think that we'll see convergence in the > > CMDB space and the Service Registry/Repository space. I've blogged on this > > in the past, as early as August of 2006, but my prediction has yet to come > > true. I think there's still too big of a gap between the development side > > of IT and the operational side of IT to really establish a market for a > > converged product. > > Blog: > > http://www.biske. com/blog/ ?p=64 > > -tb > > Todd Biske > > http://www.biske. com/blog/ > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:54 AM, delarco71 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] es> wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > > > How ITIL v3 processes could be applied to Services Lifecycle ... or in > > SOA Management area?. > > > > Is it possible that SOA/ITIL vendors approach in a future a > > convergence between the CMDB and Repository products? > > > > Regards, > > > > jose > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com > > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1714 - Release Date: 2008-10-08 > > 07:01 > > > > > > > > >
