Versions Compared

Old Version 29

changes.mady.by.user Leo Fernig

Saved on

compared with

New Version 30

changes.mady.by.user Leo Fernig

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

 

5.1 Architectural reviews?

5.2 SOA included in reviews?

5.3 Processes for publishing contracts?

5.4 Change management process for contracts?

5.5 A central repository for service contracts?

UBC

2

2

1

1

N

Michigan

2

2

1

1

N

Cornell

2

1

2

1

N

Georgetown

2

1

1

1

N

Ohio State

2

 

2

2

N

UMUC

2

2

1

2

N

UofT

2

2

2

2

Y

UW

3

4

4

3

Y

UM-W

2

3

1

2

N

UC-Irvine

3

2

2

2

N

Colorado

2

2

1

2

N

IU

2

2

1

2

Y


5.6

Additional information on the management of service contracts

...

UofT
We are creating an initial "message-flow" (Student Contact Information) to test the SOA governance process. The next step is to convert the message-flow to a web service. The next service will test the collaboration with one or two of the divisions in designing and building a new service (probably enrolment details for a student in the current session).

Colorado
Just beginning to clearly define service contracts - clearly a goal, but pretty early in the process

IU
Question 5.5 is kind of a "maybe". Our repository of service contracts is defined in WSDL form and  is included in the Kuali Service Bus registry.

...

UW
Yes: has made us more aware of the need to communicate between silos
UM-W
It has informed it. It has pointed out possible directions

Colorado
Not yet

IU
Not very much, we don't have governance bodies who are responsible for vetting changes to our service contracts. Most of that is handled adhoc by the technical teams.

...