Locally in a structured manner. Trying to define all services at an enterprise level is like saying that all objects in OO should be defined at an enterprise level so they can be shared/reused. : )
H.Ozawa 2008/10/24 Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Extending it locally or globally? > > Steve > > 2008/10/24 htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <htshozawa%40gmail.com>>: > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. Been working of a new proposal. > > > > I think this is where the modeling and governance comes in. > > I agree with the "minimal canonical form" concept and I think there > > should be a common methodology on "extending" it. I'm using > > namespaces to overlayer XML Schema definitions. > > > > H.Ozawa > > > > --- In > > [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Steve Jones" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Now the first bit I agree with (service defining a specific > > interface > >> that people must use) the second (that interface should be > >> standardised at the enterprise level) I disagree with. > >> > >> Take "Customer", if I am sending an order to a customer I need to > > know > >> > >> 1) Name > >> 2) Address > >> 3) What I'm shipping > >> > >> So the "Shipping" Service needs to have just that, it doesn't need > > the > >> enterprise canonical form of customer that also includes > >> > >> Last contact > >> Buyer history > >> Credit History > >> Credit Rating > >> Mother's Maiden name > >> Pet name > >> Sales contact > >> Phone number > >> etc > >> etc > >> etc > >> > >> This is why I don't advise enterprise canonical models except to say > >> that "minimal canonical form" is a good idea. > >> > >> Steve > >> > > > > > > >
