Docstoc

Enterprise Architecture Driven E-Government with XML Web

Document Sample
Enterprise Architecture Driven E-Government with XML Web Powered By Docstoc
					Pilot to Assess Readiness of XML
Web Services for E-Gov Initiatives

                   Brand Niemann
         Chair, Web Services Work Group
               http://web-services.gov
   Truman Room, White House Conference Center
       June 2, 2003 (minor edits on June 21st)



                                                 1
                Announcement
• Members of the SAWG (Federal), the AIC and its
  Subcommittees, and E-Gov Program Managers are
  invited to an all-day workshop on June 2nd to assess the
  readiness of XML Web Services for E-Gov Initiatives.
  The workshop will be held from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. in
  the Truman Room of the White House Conference
  Center. Eleven vendors have committed to pilot an E-
  Gov Initiative with XML Web Services and participate in
  the workshop. The completed templates (posted at
  http://web-services.gov) will be made available a week
  before this workshop for review and experimenting with
  the pilots on the Web. RSVP is required to Brand
  Niemann because space is limited (bniemann@cox.net).
                                                         2
                 Clarification
• No vendor is in any special category for this
  June 2nd or the June 26th events and we are not
  doing this pilot for just one E-Gov Initiative (e.g.
  E-Grants). All the E-Gov Program Managers,
  etc. have been invited and will receive the
  assessment of readiness.
• One "vendor" that is presenting their template
  today, actually the Open GIS Consortium, is
  however, in an advanced state of readiness
  having just completed the Geospatial One-Stop
  Portal that uses XML Web Services for
  geospatial data for that E-Gov Initiative.

                                                         3
                         Logistics
• Restrooms:
   – Men’s on this floor – Women’s on 2nd floor.
• Refreshments (a.m. and p.m.) and Lunch:
   – Need volunteer(s) to collect orders and money and contact Wall
     Street Delli.
• Meeting notes:
   – Rick Rogers, “E-Forms for E-Gov” Pilot team Leader.
• Presentations (20 minutes strictly enforced):
   – Test laptop connection to projector or load files on PC.
   – Distribute handouts beforehand.
   – Focus on the template and allow time for Q & A.
• Questions and Answers:
   – Now about logistics.
   – Specific to each vendor (in morning) and general (in afternoon).

                                                                        4
                     Overview
• 8:30 - 9 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Background.
• 9 a.m. - 12 noon Individual vendor presentations using
  the template.
• Break from about 10-10:15 a.m.
• 12 noon - 1:30 p.m. Lunch on your own.
• 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. General questions and discussions with
  all the vendors.
• 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Break.
• 3:30- 4:30 p.m. Discussion of "the SAWG assessment
  for readiness" by Federal attendees only. Vendors will
  be excused.

                                                            5
                 Background
•   1. Introduction to Web Services(7-30)
•   2. Architecture & Infrastructure Committee(31)
•   3. AIC Components Subcommittee(32-33)
•   4. Emerging Components Conference
    Series(34-37)
•   5. XML Web Services Working Group(38-44)
•   6. Component Registry and Repository
    Template for XML Web Services Pilot
    Projects(45-46)
•   7. Solution Architects Working Group
    (SAWG)(47-49)
•   8. Appendix(52-60)
                                                     6
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• Microsoft coined the term “Web services” in
  June 2000, when the company introduced Web
  services as a key component of its .Net initiative,
  a broad new vision for embracing the Internet in
  the development, engineering and use of
  software.
• As others began to investigate Web services, it
  became clear that the technology could
  revolutionize (be the next stage in) distributed
  computing.
• Now nearly every major vendor is marketing
  Web services tools and applications and Web
  services are radically changing IT architectures
  and partner relationships.                        7
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services encompass a set of related
  standards that can enable any two computers to
  communicate and exchange data via a network,
  such as the Internet.
• The primary standard used in Web services is
  the Extensible Markup Language (XML)
  developed by the World Wide Web Consortium
  (W3C).
• Developers use XML tags to describe individual
  pieces of data, forming XML documents, which
  are text-based and can be processed on any
  platform.
                                                   8
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• XML’s portability and its rapid adoption
  throughout the industry made it the obvious
  choice for enabling cross-platform data
  communication in Web services.
• XML provides the foundation for many core Web
  services standards (SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI)
  and vocabularies (XML-based markup for a
  specific industry or purpose).
• Almost every type of business can benefit fro
  Web services such as expediting software
  development, integrating applications and
  databases, and automating transactions with
  suppliers, partners, and clients.
                                              9
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) is an
  XML vocabulary that enables programs on
  separate computers to interact across a network.
• WSDL (Web Services Description Language) is
  another XML vocabulary that allows developers
  to describe Web services and their capabilities in
  a standardized format.
• UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and
  Integration) is a framework that defines XML-
  based registries in which businesses can publish
  information about themselves and the services
  they offer.
                                                  10
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Structured Programming to Object Technology:
  – In the 1960s, many large software-development
    projects encountered severe difficulties and people
    began to realize that it was a far more complex
    activity than they had imagined.
  – This lead to structured programming – a disciplined
    approach to creating programs that are clear,
    demonstrably correct, and easy to modify, in the
    1970s.
  – However. It was not until object-oriented
    programming became widely used in the 1980s and
    1990s that the software-development process
    improved dramatically.
                                                          11
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Object technology is a packaging scheme
  that enables programmers to create
  meaningful software units:
  – Almost any noun can be reasonably
    represented as a software object (date,
    paycheck, invoice, audio, video, files, etc.).
  – Object have properties (e.g. color) and
    perform actions (e.g. drawing).
  – Groups of related objects are classes.
     • A class is to an object as a blueprint is to a house.
                                                           12
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• One of the key problems with procedural programming
  (e.g. Fortran, Pascal, Basic, and C) is that the software
  units created do not mirror real-world entities effectively
  and therefore are not particularly reusable.
• By contrast, object-oriented programming (C++, Java,
  C#, and Visual Basic .Net) allows for code to be
  organized and encapsulated by classes, which facilitates
  the reuse of software components.
   – Developers can group classes into class libraries, then make the
     libraries available to developers working on other projects.
• Web services take advantage of object-oriented
  programming by enabling developers to build
  applications from existing software components in a
  modular approach.
   – This is about transforming a network (e.g. the Internet) into an
     enormous library of programmatic components available to
     developers to produce significant productivity gains.
                                                                        13
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• When developers create substantial
  applications, often it is more efficient, or even
  necessary, for different task to be performed on
  different computers, called N-tier applications:
   – A three-tier application might have a user interface on
     one computer, business-logic processing on a second
     and a database on a third – all interacting as the
     application runs.
• For distributed applications to function correctly,
  application components (e.g. programming
  objects) executing on different computers
  throughout a network must be able to
  communicate.
                                                          14
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• Unfortunately, interoperability (the ability to
  communicate and share data with software from
  different vendors and platforms) is limited
  among conventional proprietary technologies
  (e.g. CORBA, DCOM. RMI, DSOM).
• Web services improve distributed computing
  interoperability by using open (non-proprietary)
  standards that can enable (theoretically) any two
  software components to communicate and are
  easier to debug because they are text-based,
  rather than binary , communication protocols.
                                                  15
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services provide capabilities similar to
  those of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), but
  are simpler and less expensive to implement.
• Web services are more conducive to
  implementing “loosely coupled” systems (e.g.
  systems in which developers can alter a
  programming component without modifying
  other components to reflect the original change).
• Web services can be configured to work with
  EDI systems, allowing organizations to use the
  two technologies together or to phase out EDI
  while adopting Web services.
                                                  16
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services advantages:
   – Use open, text-based standards, which enable components
     written in different languages and for different platforms to
     communicate.
   – Promote a modular approach to programming, so multiple
     organizations can communicate with the same Web service.
   – Comparatively easy and inexpensive to implement, because
     they employ an existing infrastructure and because most
     applications can be repackaged as Web services.
   – Significantly reduce the costs of enterprise application (EAI)
     integration and B2B communications.
   – Implemented incrementally, rather than all at once which lessens
     the cost and reduces the organizational disruption from an
     abrupt switch in technologies.
   – The Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I)
     consisting of over 100 vendors promotes interoperability.

                                                                   17
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services challenges:
  – The standards that drive Web services are still in draft
    form (always will be in refinement).
  – Some vendors want to retain their intellectual property
    rights to certain Web services standards.
  – Web services need standard security procedures (a
    common problem to all of distributed computing).
  – The leading registry, based on the UDDI specification,
    has some key limitations, and alternative discovery
    methods are provided by ebXML and WS-Inspection.
  – Web services need Quality of Service (QoS) support
    from Web Services Registries, Brokerages, and
    Network Providers.

                                                          18
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services:
  – Software programs that use XML to exchange
    information with other software via common
    Internet protocols:
    • Scalable (e.g. multiplying two numbers together to
      an entire customer-relationship management
      system)
    • Programmable (encapsulates a task)
    • Based on XML (open, text-based standard)
    • Self-describing (metadata for access and use)
    • Discoverable (search and locate in registries)
                                                       19
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• Web services:
   – An additional Web tool better than “screen scraping”.
       • Processing HTML pages with applications designed to locate
         certain data or patterns of content.
   – The new distributed computing environment.
       • A standard method for enabling communication between
         applications’ middle tiers over a network.
       • Different application can use the same data.
       • A much higher level of data integration both within and between
         businesses, helping companies improve relationships with partners
         and customers.
   – The next business model of the Internet.
       • Could vastly improve collaborative software development and
         deployment as an Internet-based service.
       • Solves many problems inherent in the previous distributed-
         computing technologies.


                                                                         20
1. Introduction to Web Services
                                 • 1. Client queries registry
                   WSDL            to locate service.
           2
 UDDI              Documen       • 2. Registry refers client to
Registry           t               WSDL document.
                                 • 3. Client accesses WSDL
 1
           3                       document.
               4                 • 4. WSDL provides data to
                                   interact with Web service.
               5
 Client                          • 5. Client sends SOAP-
                       Web
                                   message request.
               6
                       Service   • 6. Web service returns
                                   SOAP-message
                                   response.

                                                             21
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• IBM has created a model to depict Web services
  interactions which is referred to as a “service-
  oriented architecture” comprising relationships
  among three entities:
  – A Web service provider;
  – A Web service requestor; and a
  – A Web service broker.
• Note: IBM’s service-oriented architecture is a
  generic model describing service collaboration,
  not specific to Web services.
  – See http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/

                                                             22
  1. Introduction to Web Services

                               Service
                               provider

               Publish                          Bind




          Service                                      Service
          broker                Find                   requestor


Service-oriented architecture representation (Courtesy of IBM Corporation)



                                                                             23
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• Stages of Web services Development and
  Deployment:
  – Creation – Design, development,
    documentation, testing, and distribution.
  – Publication – Web service hosting and
    maintenance.
  – Promotion – Directory services, value-added
    services and accreditation.


                                                  24
    1. Introduction to Web Services
                                                      Service requestors
Service providers




                            Web Services Network:
                                  Security
                                 Reliability
                                    QoS
                                   Billing




                    Web services networks act as intermediaries
                    in Web services interactions.
                                                                           25
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and
  Integration):
  – A framework that defines XML-based registries in
    which businesses can publish information about
    themselves and the services they offer.
  – The key to the ultimate success of Web services, but
    has some key limitations, and alternative discovery
    methods are provided by ebXML and WS-Inspection.
  – Registries are repositories that contain documents
    that describe business data and also provide search
    capabilities and programmatic access to remote
    applications.
                                                       26
1. Introduction to Web Services
                         UDDI Registry


                         Links to WSDL
                         documents



     Publish                                       Search


                        SOAP messages
Service provider                             Service consumer
business application                         business application



  See UDDI XML Schema at http://www.uddi.org/schema/uddi_v2.xsd
                                                                    27
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and
  Integration) (continued):
  – Direct and indirect discovery:
     • Direct is maintained by the service provider (advantage -
       accurate and current).
     • Indirect is maintained by a third party (advantage - interact
       without committing).
  – The UDDI Business Registry (UBR):
     • “Register once, publish everywhere” replication.
         – Only register with your custodian to avoid duplication.
     • Structured like the telephone book.
     • Mainly supports indirect, but can be direct.


                                                                       28
  1. Introduction to Web Services
• UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and
  Integration) (continued):
  – UBR has five components:
     •   Business information
     •   Business-service information
     •   Binding information
     •   Service specification information
     •   Publisher-assertion information
  – Organization adopting private registries more quickly
    than public registries (Gartner Group-75% by 2005).


                                                            29
   1. Introduction to Web Services
• UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and Integration)
  (continued):
   – Four varieties of private UBRs:
       •   E-marketplace
       •   Portal
       •   Partner catalog
       •   Internal enterprise application integration
   – Different technologies for different situations.
       • E.g. UDDI and ebXML can be used as complimentary services.
   – Software vendors must incorporate support for these
     technologies into enterprise software and must provide Web
     services application-development tools that hide low-level
     programming details.
       • E.g. Microsoft Server 2003 and Tamino 4.1 with UDDI and
         WebDAV.

                                                                      30
1. Introduction to Web Services
• Acronyms:             • Practical Examples:
  – UDDI                  –   Phone Book
  – WSDL                  –   Contract
  – SOAP                  –   Envelope
  – HTTP, SMTP, FTP       –   Mailperson
  – Programming (DOM,     –   Speech
    SAX)
  – Schema (DTD, XSD)     – Vocabulary
  – XML                   – Alphabet


                                                31
 2. Architecture & Infrastructure Committee

• Leadership:
   – John Gilligan, USAF CIO, Chair.
   – Norman Lorentz, OMB CTO, Advisor.
• Three Subcommittees:
   – Governance: Policy guidance and assistance in design and
     implementation of the Enterprise Architecture discipline and
     practice.
       • Robert Haycock, OMB, and John Przysucha, DOE.
   – Components: Identify, mature and facilitate use/reuse of
     Component-based Architectures.
       • Reynolds Cahoon, CIO, NARA, and Robert Haycock, OMB.
   – Emerging Technology: Identify technologies with the potential to
     improve the value and quality of the FEA.
       • Dawn Meyerriecks, CTO, DISA, and Mark Day, DCIO, EPA.

                                                                    32
3. AIC Components Subcommittee
• Vision: Interoperable, shareable, re-usable Enterprise
  Architecture Components that support the President’s
  Management Agenda principles of customer-focused,
  results-oriented, and market-based Government.
• Mission: Foster the identification, maturation, use, and
  re-use of Enterprise Architecture Components and
  component-based Enterprise Architectures in
  Government.
• Goal: Facilitate cross-agency development and
  implementation of Enterprise Architecture Components.
• Definition: An Enterprise Architecture component is
  defined as “a self-contained business process or service
  with predefined functionality that may be exposed
  through a business or technology interface.”
                                                         33
3. AIC Components Subcommittee
• FY 2003 Task Plan:
  – Task 1. Develop a Components-Based Architecture
    White Paper.
     • Lead: Harry Feely, Department of Education.
  – Task 2. Develop a Components Registry/Repository
    Concept Paper.
     • Lead: Tim Bass, Air Force (consultant).
  – Task 3. Develop a Solution Development Life Cycle
    (SDLC).
     • Leads: John McManus (NASA) and Daud Santosa (USPTO).
  – Task 4. Develop and Market a “Quick Win”.
     • Lead: David Holyoke, SSA.

                                                         34
 4. Emerging Components Conference Series

• Date: June 26, 2003
• Location: Small Business Administration, Washington,
  D.C.
• Purpose: To Explore the Potential and Realities of
  Accelerating the Emergence of Components Needed for
  Federal Enterprise Development by Tapping the
  Multiplicative Benefits from Small Business Innovation
  Research (SBIR) Aligned with Federal Enterprise
  Architecture Component Needs.
• Question: How can we organize around proven catalytic
  programs like the SBIR to stimulate incubator and
  marketplace mechanisms needed for rapid and
  responsive federal enterprise components development?
                                                      35
 4. Emerging Components Conference Series

• General Purpose:
  – The Plenary and Framing the Principles Sessions
    would be recorded so in subsequent quarterly
    conferences/workshops the new participants could
    easily get up to speed on this subject and the majority
    of the time would be spent on the “marketplace for
    components” to populate the Components Registry
    and Repository.
• Mapping to the Governance Subcommittee Work
  Plan:
  – Goal 3/Task 3. Develop Joint Component
    Directory/Repository Pilot:
     • This would support populating this Joint Component
       Directory/Repository Pilot with re-usable components.
                                                               36
 4. Emerging Components Conference Series

• Mapping to the Components Subcommittee Work Plan:
  – Task 1. Develop a Components-based Architecture White Paper
     • Ren Cahoon has been invited and accepted to present the status of
       this.
  – Task 2. Develop a Components Registry/Repository Concept
    Paper
     • Ren Cahoon has also been invited and accepted to present the
       status of this.
  – Task 3. Develop a Solution Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
     • Daud Santosa been invited and accepted to present the status of
       this.
  – Task 4. Develop and Market a “Quick Win”
     • The candidate “Quick Wins” we have discussed have been invited
       to participate in this by completing the Components Registry and
       Repository Template and summarizing it in the Lightning Round.
       Bob Haycock has been invited to introduce the FEA Components.


                                                                          37
 4. Emerging Components Conference Series
• Mapping to the Emerging Technology Subcommittee Work
  Plan:
   – Task 1. Lifecycle Process for Managing Adoption of Emerging
     Technology
       • This is an implementation of the Lifecycle Process we are developing with
         the help of IAC and others.
   – Task 2A. Universal Access Working Group” Collaboration Expedition
     Workshops
       • This working group is involved in the planning of this and will be supporting
         this concept starting with the July 15th Workshop.
   – Task 2B. Extensible Markup Language (XML) Working Group: XML
     Registry/Repository of Inherently Governmental Artifacts and Schema.
       • The Components Registry and Repository Template XML Schema would be
         registered in the XML Registry.
   – Task 2C. XML Web Services Working group: E-Forms Project
       • The Components Registry and Repository Template XML Schema would be
         part of this.
   – XML Web Services Working Group Pilot Projects (12)
       • The pilot projects would be contributing their Templates and participating in
         this.
                                                                                     38
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
• Chartered by the Federal CIO Council under its
  Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (CIOC/AIC):
   – Works with the CIOC/AIC, the OMB Solution Architects Working
     Group (SAWG), and the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) to
     produce incubator pilot projects in support of the e-Gov
     Initiatives that use XML Web Services to demonstrate increased
     accessibility and interoperability.
   – See http://web-services.gov for definitions and purpose.
   – Recent Press:
      • Working group tests tools for Web services, GCN,12/16/02; Vol. 21
        No. 34.
          – http://www.gcn.com/21_34/news/20656-1.html
      • Let the building begin, GCN, 1/27/03, Vol. 22, No. 2.
          – http://gcn.com/22_2/


                                                                        39
5. XML Web Services Working Group

“Users never know
  what they want…



 … until they see
 what they get”

                                    40
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
• Pilots:
   – Purpose: To populate the Government-wide Components*
     Registry and Repository with reusable (interoperable)
     components from successful pilots.
       • *An Enterprise Architecture Component is a self-contained business
         process or service with predetermined functionality that may be
         exposed through a business or technology interface.
   – Three Step Process:
       • (1) Identify and Vet in the Working Group.
       • (2) Produce the Pilot.
       • (3) “Operationalize” the Successful Pilots.
   – Funding Options:
       • (1) Vendor Resources.
       • (2) Agency Resources.
       • (3) Combination of (1) and (2).


                                                                         41
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
• “Eforms for E-Gov" Pilot Team Questions and Answers:
   – Process:
      • Open Collaboration with Open Standards in Support of the E-Gov
        and Agency E-Forms Initiatives.
   – XML Standards:
      • Schema, XForms, SVG, XHTML, XML-Signature, etc.
   – Time Frame:
      • Initial Report (May or June) and Final Report (October).
   – Presentations and Meetings:
      • FedWeb Conference Tutorial (May 5th - to be rescheduled) and
        Session (May 6th).
      • Next on June 18th.
   – Contacts:
      • Team Lead, Rick Rogers (rick@fenestra.com)
      • Chair, Brand Niemann (niemann.brand@epa.gov)


                                                                         42
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
• “E-Forms for E-Gov" Pilot Sub-Teams:
   –   Accessibility
   –   Business Case
   –   Client Specifications
   –   Fixed Content & Behavior
   –   Form Selection (six selected)
   –   Presentation
   –   Records-Keeping
   –   Schema (draft paper)
   –   Security (draft paper)
   –   Services
• See new Web Site and ListServ:
   – http://www.fenestra.com/eforms
• Recent news story:
   – http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/22014-1.html
                                                              43
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
• Business Compliance One Stop Revised
  Business Case, April 20, 2003*:
  – “Regulatory Reform is just as important as tax reform
    for strengthening the economy”
  – Three Proposed Strategies for Reducing Regulatory
    Burden:
     • Make SBA the Advocate for Regulatory Burden Reduction.
     • Implement E-Forms for Major Industries.
     • Implement Compliance Assistance Tools.
  – Common Elements of Each Alternative:
     • E-Forms (like an Intuit’s Turbo Tax).
     • Customer Agent.
     • Partnership.

     *Richard J. Varn, President, RJV Consulting, Des Moines, Iowa.   44
 5. XML Web Services Working Group
               Simplified Use Case: E-Forms
Design-time:                            Runtime:
• Identify the data elements in         • Present user with a form to be
  the form(s), harmonize the              filled out. User populates the
  elements (promoting reuse               form and submits it (GIDS).
  wherever possible) and create         • Create XML from the
  an XML Schema for each form             submitted data (GIDS) that
  (XML Collaborator).                     complies with the schema
• Store the XML Schema in an              registered in the XML registry
  XML registry (XML                       (XML Collaborator) and
  Collaborator), so that others           populate information systems
  can access the information              with the data gathered from the
  necessary to:                           user (MetaMatrix Server and/or
   – Create e-forms and paper forms       Tamino Server).
     (GIDS).
   – Create mapping(s) to information
     systems, such as relational
     databases, object-oriented
     databases, and flat files
     (MetaBase Modeler).
   – Store in native (Tamino Server)
     and/or relational databases.                                      45
 6. Component Registry and Repository Template
       for XML Web Services Pilot Projects
• Standard fields:
   – (1) Company background and capabilities including participation
     in standards organizations. Include URL(s) to Web site (s). This
     could be in the format of the UDDI Business Registry (UBR)
     “White Pages” (general information about a company’s name,
     address, contact information and identifiers), “Yellow Pages”
     (divides the company into various categories based on the
     products or services the company offers), and “Green Pages”
     (technical information about a company’s products, services and
     Web services).
   – (2) E-Gov pilot architecture (where are the re-usable
     components?, where are the XML Web Services?, where are the
     possibilities for interoperability with other vendors in Phase 2?,
     etc.). Include URL(s) to diagrams.
   – (3) Demonstration of the pilot. Narrative of what the pilot shows.
     Include URL(s) to instructions and functioning Web services.
   – (4) Supporting documentation. Include URLs to XML artifacts
     (forms, XML Schema, WSDL, etc.) and other information to
     explain them.
   – (5) Lessons learned and suggestions (optional).                    46
 6. Component Registry and Repository Template
       for XML Web Services Pilot Projects
• General Instructions:
  – All four standard fields of the template need to be
    completed with narrative and URL links while fitting
    within a single standard page size and can be
    provided in word processing, PDF, HTML, or XML
    formats. Completed templates need to be submitted
    one week before the event date to be distributed for
    review by those doing the assessment of readiness,
    but can be revised for handout and posting to the
    vendor’s Web sites after that. The order of the verbal
    presentations will be based on a random drawing of
    those attending the event.
  – Note: This template will have an XML Schema soon
    based on an extension of the UDDI XML Schema.
     • http://www.uddi.org/schema/uddi_v2.xsd

                                                         47
7. Solution Architects Working Group (SAWG)

• Background:
  – This was in response to Charlie Havekost's request for the
    SAWG to do an assessment of the readiness of XML Web
    Services for E-Gov Initiatives like E-Grants.
  – E-Grants asked the "E-Forms for E-Gov" Pilot to do their SF424
    XML Schema first and ASAP after the February 6th launch and
    then when we delivered it so rapidly Charlie was concerned as to
    whether or not any of the E-Forms vendors were actually ready
    to use it and asked the SAWG leadership to hold a discussion in
    the SAWG on how to deal with this and the XML Web Services
    WG was selected to do this by building off the vendor
    participation in "E-Forms for E-Gov" pilot and got 11 vendors to
    commit to doing this and presenting it within 30 days.
  – We have had several meetings/conference calls with the
    vendors to answer their questions and provide the background
    materials they needed which have been posted to the Web site
    and ListServ for all to see and use.
                                                                  48
          E-Grants Single System Solution (1/29/03)
  XForms
  Web          Applicant 1     Applicant 2          Applicant 3   .….   Applicant N
  Browser
  Interface*
                Valid XML*
                                                                  XML Collaborator:
        XML Repository &                 E-Grants                 Design Collaboration
        Web Services*                                             And Registration
                                    Trusted Broker                Support*
                Valid XML*


XML         Agency 1             Agency 2           Agency 3      .….    Agency N
Repository
& Web Services*
        Trusted Broker Embodies Standards, Benefits Applicants and Agencies:
        Facilitates System-to-System Interfaces                  *Annotations by
        Builds applicant knowledge of "core" data                WG Chair             49
        Helps identify commonalities among agency-specific data
 7. Solution Architects Working Group (SAWG)

• Opportunity for Vendors Participating in the "E-Forms for E-Gov"
  Pilot to Pilot the Use of XML Web Services in E-Gov Initiatives (e.g.
  e-Grants, etc.) to Support an "Assessment of Readiness" by the
  Working Group for the Solutions Architects Working Group (SAWG)
  and the "QuickWin" Task of the Components Subcommittee of the
  AIC. All Vendors were invited to participate.
        •   1. Microsoft - Susie Adams
        •   2. Adobe - Melonie Warfel
        •   3. Soltex - Matthew Garst
        •   4. Digital Evolution - Al Lang
        •   5. Sand Hill Systems - Krishna Srinivasan
        •   6. SeeBeyond - Mike Sinisgalli
        •   7. Object Builders - Joe Brophy
        •   8. SiloSmashers - Ken Sall (observing)
        •   9. Conclusive Technology - Matthew McKennirey
        •   10. ITM Associates - Steve Katz
        •   11. Pure Edge - Greg O'Connell


            See Appendix for Questions and Answers on May 2nd         50
                   Agenda
• 8:30 - 9 a.m. Welcome, Introduction, and
  Background.
• 9 a.m. - 12 noon Individual vendor presentations
  using the template.
• Break from about 10-10:15 a.m.
• 12 noon - 1:30 p.m. Lunch on your own.
• 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. General questions and
  discussions with all the vendors.
• 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Break.
• 3:30- 4:30 p.m. Discussion of "the SAWG
  assessment for readiness" by Federal attendees
  only. Vendors will be excused.
                                                 51
Individual Vendor Presentations
•   1. Open GIS Consortium
•   2. Adobe
•   3. Conclusive Technology
•   4. Digital Evolution
•   5. MetaMatrix
•   6. Microsoft
•   7. Object Builders
•   8. Sand Hill Systems
•   Note: These vendors did not respond by the May 26th template
    deadline:
    –   Soltex (Not heard from)
    –   SeeBeyond (May submit for June 26th)
    –   ITM Associates (May submit for June 26th)
    –   Pure Edge (May submit for June 26th)
    –   AmberPoint (May submit for June 26th)

                                                                   52
                              Appendix
    • Questions and Answers on May 2nd:
        – Question: Can a vendor (e.g. Speechworks
          International) join the conference call and participate
          in the pilot project at this stage.
        – ANSWER: While I cannot, nor would I, limit
          participation in the conference call by any vendor, we
          have stipulated that a vendor should be a participant
          in the basic "E-Forms for E-Gov" pilot in order to have
          the background and experience for this even more
          ambitious pilot.

See http://listserv.gsa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0305&L=cioc-web-services&F=&S=&P=232
                                                                           53
                              Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
   – Questions for Government e-Forms Team (from Mike Connor of Adobe)
     Rev1.0 5/1/03.
   – 1. What specifically are you trying to evaluate / test from a technical
     and/or user standpoint?
       • ANSWER: Increased interoperability/reusability of multiple vendor solutions
         for E-Gov Initiatives through the implementation of XML Web Services.
   – a. How would you rank those evaluation areas against each other:
       •   i. User experience
       •   ii. Submission of data to registry
       •   iii. Creation of form from schema
       •   iv. Compliance with the ebXML Registry standard
   – ANSWER: It is an evaluation of the complete solution from "user
     experience/interface" to "back end data storage and reuse" using the
     XML Web Services "publish, find, and bind" paradigm with at least the
     data entry form interface with data validation against the XML Schema,
     the registration of the XML Schema as a reusable component, and an
     XML Web Services interface for linking/chaining to other Web Services.

                                                                                   54
                               Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
   – 2. Is dealing with the registry directly sufficient for this demo? ie.
       • a. Extracting a schema and building a form around it
       • b. Registering that form, its meta data and schema within the registry
       • c. Submitting the
            – i. Form,
            – ii. Data,
            – iii. Form and data back to the registry? Do they need to be signed? (assumes that
              once available the data could be used to kick off other process)
            – iv. Does the form need to be archived in the registry?
   – ANSWER: See answer to 1.a. Once an E-Gov Initiative is selected to
     pilot, preferably one that requires forms for data collection and
     exchange, then an architecture is needed that provides for a content
     model (XML Schema), work flow processes, interoperability, reusability,
     etc. and then a strategy for piloting key aspects of that with XML Web
     Services, not the entire E-Gov Initiative because that would be doing the
     entire project, not piloting it. Some kind of "registry" functionality (ISO
     11179, ebXML, UDDI, etc.) is an important part of this, but should not
     become the primary focus to the exclusion of other parts of the
     implementation of an XML Web Services-based solution. Digital
     signatures is an important, but more advanced aspect of the "E-Forms
     for E-Gov" pilot being worked on by the Sub-Teams in the "E-Forms for
     E-Gov" Pilot.
                                                                                             55
                    Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
  – 3. Can you provide us a minimum set of use case
    examples?
  – ANSWER: We have an E-Grants XML Schema, we
    have a cross-section of forms that are being selected,
    we have some basic architecture diagrams and work
    flow descriptions and experts, etc. that have been
    distributed and are available at http://web-
    services.gov. This is a key part of the challenge and
    fun of piloting - see the next answer.


                                                         56
                    Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
  – 4. Specifically from a technical or use case standpoint
    what do we not need to address?
  – ANSWER: I think the vendors need to use their best
    judgment as to what the essence of an E-Gov
    Initiative is to be piloted with XML Web Services and
    include what is reasonable to do within the limited
    time frame (30 days or less) available to support the
    "readiness assessment" sooner than later.



                                                         57
                                    Appendix
•   Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
     – 5. Do you have any guidelines for us in terms of the technology platform you
       would like us to use?
     – a. what server technology?
          • ANSWER: Your choice as long as it supports the delivery of XML Web Services on the
            Internet.
     – b. Is there any restriction on which implementation of an ebXML Registry we can
       use?
          • ANSWER: No, this is a lower priority detail at this stage, than being able to reuse the
            XML Schema, etc. through a basic registry.
     – c. Registry browser - is there any restriction on registry client architecture we can
       use?
          • ANSWER: No. See previous answer.
     – d. For the purposes of this demo is it adequate to deploy the registry browser to
       the "end user" machine?
          • ANSWER: Yes. See previous answer to b.
     – e. Digital signature
          • ANSWER: See answer to question 2.
     – f. Form and XML Schema (Is the main SF 424 form sufficient for this pilot?)
          • ANSWER: It will have to be, it you cannot generate a content model (XML Schema)
            yourself as part of the pilot.
     – g. Is the use of a single form sufficient?
          • ANSWER: Probably not because of discussions in the "E-Forms for E-Gov" pilot. See
            Rick Rogers, Pilot Team Lead.
     – h. Use of current, versus, beta software?
          • ANSWER: Your choice, but cannot do NDA's (see answer to question 8 below)
                                                                                                      58
                    Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
  – 6. Do you anticipate additional requirements / use
    cases above the set you provided that you would like
    to see tested in the future? If so what are those?
  – ANSWER: The OMB Solutions Architects Working
    Group (SAWG), the Components Subcommittee, the
    E-Gov Initiative Program Managers, etc. could very
    well suggest that after seeing these pilots, but I
    cannot predict/speculate what those would be at this
    stage. I suggest keeping it simple at this stage.


                                                       59
                    Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd (continued):
  – 7. Does the demo need to be made available for
    ongoing use by the team or is the demo / presentation
    sufficient?
  – ANSWER: These pilots should be available in some
    form after the initial presentations (end of May-early
    June) for use in related activities (e.g. the
    Components Technology Conference, June 26th,
    etc.) that will be announced later.



                                                        60
                   Appendix
• Questions and Answers on May 2nd
  (continued):
  – 8. At this point do you require any financial or
    pricing information and can that be provided
    confidentially?
  – ANSWER: We are not addressing/including
    financial or pricing information (public or
    confidential) at this stage of this pilot. We also
    cannot enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements
    (NDA).

                                                     61

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:10/17/2011
language:English
pages:61
gjmpzlaezgx gjmpzlaezgx
About