...
| 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 UW-W Madison | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | N |
UC-Irvine | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | N |
Colorado | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | N |
Indiana IU | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Y |
Additional information on the management of service contracts
...
Colorado
Just beginning to clearly define service contracts - clearly a goal, but pretty early in the process
IndianaIU
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
IndianaIU
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.
...