Patent Grant
10387816
Field of the Invention
The field of the invention is data processing, or, more specifically, methods, apparatus, and products for automating a governance process of optimizing a portfolio of services in a governed SOA.
Description of Related Art
Service Oriented Architecture (‘SOA’) is an Architectural style that guides all aspects of creating and using business processes, packaged as services, throughout their lifecycle, as well as defining and provisioning the IT (‘information technology’) infrastructure that allows different applications to exchange data and participate in business processes loosely coupled from the operating systems and programming languages underlying those applications. SOA represents a model in which functionality is decomposed into distinct units (services), which can be distributed over a network and can be combined together and reused to create business applications. These services communicate with each other by passing data from one service to another, or by coordinating an activity between two or more services. The concepts of Service Oriented Architecture are often seen as built upon, and the evolution of, the older concepts of distributed computing and modular programming. Although services and a business's SOA Architecture are often strictly defined, governance of an SOA, implementation of an SOA, operation of an SOA, and management of an SOA is often not defined. A defined model of governance, however, may increase effectiveness and efficiency in implementing, operating, and managing a business's SOA, thereby providing savings to the business. Modeling and implementing governance processes of such a defined governance model may further enhance efficiency and effectiveness of implementing, operating, and managing a business's SOA.
Methods, apparatus, and products for automating a governance process of optimizing a portfolio of services in a governed Service Oriented Architecture (‘SOA’) are disclosed that include modeling the governance process of optimizing a portfolio of services in the governed SOA and generating, in dependence upon the modeled governance process, one or more automation modules, each automation module comprising a module of computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer processor, supports performance of one or more steps of the modeled governance process. In embodiments of the present invention, the modeled governance process includes determining whether a collection of service artifacts matches one or more service artifacts stored in a service registry; if no service artifacts stored in the service registry match the collection of service artifacts, initiating creation of a service in accordance with the collection of service artifacts; if one or more service artifacts stored in the service registry match the collection of service artifacts: selecting, in dependence upon predefined action selection criteria, a service administration action to perform; obtaining approval of the selected service administration action; and initiating the selected service administration action.
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following more particular descriptions of exemplary embodiments of the invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings wherein like reference numbers generally represent like parts of exemplary embodiments of the invention.
Exemplary methods, apparatus, and products for automating a governance process of optimizing a portfolio of services in a governed SOA in accordance with the present invention are described with reference to the accompanying drawings, beginning with
The system of
A relevant stakeholder (106) of a business is an individual or party that affects, or can be affected by, a business's actions. “Relevant stakeholders,” as the term is used in the specification, refers to stakeholders which are most directly affected by a business's actions with respect to SOA and often have decision making authority with regard to one or more aspects of the SOA governance model. Although only consulting groups and relevant stakeholders are described here with respect to implementing and operating a governance model in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, readers of skill in the art will immediately recognize that many other individuals or group of individuals associated with a business may take part in implementing and operating some or more aspects such a governance model and each such individual or group of individuals and their actions are also well within the scope of the present invention.
The exemplary SOA governance model (108) of
As mentioned above, an SOA governance model (108) provides parameters used in governing a business's governed SOA (162). To that end, the exemplary SOA governance model (108) of
The exemplary SOA governance model (108) of
The compliance (114) governance process governs the review and approval processes used in implementing and managing services within an SOA. The governance processes includes providing criteria defined in the establishment of an SOA governance model to guide such review and approval processes. Such criteria may include a business's principles, standards, defined business roles, and responsibilities associated with those defined business roles.
The communication (116) governance process governs communication of SOA vision, SOA plans, and the SOA governance model to members of the business for educating such members. The communication governance process ensures that governance is acknowledged and understood throughout a business and also provides, to members of the business, environments and tools for easy access and use of information describing an SOA governance model.
The appeals (118) governance process enables members of a business to appeal SOA decisions. This appeals governance process therefore also provides exceptions to business policies, information technology policies, and other criteria that must typically be met within SOA decision-making processes.
The lifecycle governance process (119) governs the implementation and management of an SOA. Services deployed in an SOA may follow a lifecycle—a particular set of phases or stages through which the service proceeds from inception of the service to retirement or repurposing of the service. In addition, the SOA as a whole may follow a particular lifecycle. An SOA lifecycle, for example, may be an iterative process that includes modeling the SOA, assembling the SOA, deploying service in the SOA, and managing the SOA.
The example lifecycle governance process (119) includes several other governance processes—finer grain detail processes, each of which is governs a different aspect of service or SOA lifecycle. The lifecycle governance processes in the example of
As mentioned above, each of the governance processes when executed governs one or more governed processes. A governed process is a processes used in implementing, operating, maintaining, and managing an SOA for a business. The exemplary SOA governance model (108) of
The categories of governed processes in the example of
The SOA governance processes (110) of
Other exemplary implementation and execution tools (154) in the exemplary system of
Other exemplary implementation, execution, and monitoring tools (154) in the exemplary system of
The arrangement of governance processes, governed processes, implementation and execution tools making up the exemplary system illustrated in
Each of the governance processes (110) in the example of
Stored in RAM (268) is a process modeling and automation tool, a module of computer program instructions for automating governance processes in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Examples of process modeling and automation tools which may be enhanced to automate governance processes in accordance with embodiments of the present invention include business process modeling (‘BPM’) tools. Some BPM tools enable a user to model processes through use of Business Process Execution Language—BPEL. BPEL is short for Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL), an executable language for specifying interactions with Web Services. WS-BPEL provides a language for the specification of Executable and Abstract business processes. By doing so, WS-BPEL extends the Web Services interaction model and enables it to support business transactions. WS-BPEL defines an interoperable integration model that facilitates the expansion of automated process integration both within and between businesses.
In the example of
In the example of
The service portfolio optimization (125) governance process includes determining whether a collection of service artifacts matches one or more service artifacts stored in a registry and repository (274); if no service artifacts stored in the registry and repository (274) match the collection of service artifacts, initiating creation of a service in accordance with the collection of service artifacts; if one or more service artifacts stored in the registry and repository (274) match the collection of service artifacts: selecting, in dependence upon predefined action selection criteria, a service administration action to perform; obtaining approval of the selected service administration action; and initiating the selected service administration action.
The deployed service subscription (127) governance process includes: collecting available service artifacts associated with a deployed service; determining whether the deployed service meets predefined functional requirements including, performing a functional gap analysis between the collected service artifacts and the predefined functional requirements; if the deployed service meets the predefined functional requirements, determining whether the deployed service meets predefined non-functional requirements including: performing a non-functional gap analysis between the collected service artifacts and the predefined non-functional requirements; if the deployed service meets the predefined non-functional requirements, creating a subscription request; requesting approval of the subscription request; and if approval is received, creating a subscription to the deployed service.
The new service version creation (129) governance process includes reviewing requested updates to a deployed service; determining, in dependence upon the requested updates and a specification of a present version of the deployed service, whether a new version of the deployed service is required; if a new version of the deployed service is required, determining whether the present version of the deployed service will be subsumed by the new version; and if the present version of the deployed service will be subsumed by the new version, retiring the present version of the deployed service.
The example computer (252) is coupled via the data communications network (200) to a registry and repository (274). A registry is a storage location for references to other items, like pointers in computer program instructions. The example registry of
Also stored in RAM (268) is an operating system (254). Operating systems useful automating governance processes according to embodiments of the present invention include UNIX™ Linux™ Microsoft XP™, AIX™ IBM's i5/OS™, and others as will occur to those of skill in the art. The operating system (254), process modeling and automation tool (220), automation modules (224), and modeled processes (222) in the example of
The computer (252) of
The example computer (252) of
The exemplary computer (252) of
For further explanation,
A BPM tool may model a governance process by receiving a specification of steps of the process, receiving a specification of inputs for each step of the process, receiving a specification of outputs for each step of the process, and receiving a specification of a relationship (order) between steps of the process. A BPM tool may receive these specifications from various sources and various combinations of such sources—relevant stakeholders of a business, consultants, a Chief Information Officer (CIO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a business, an Information Technology (‘IT’) manager, a business or service Domain Owner, an SOA Center of Excellence (COE) Architect, an Application Architect, an SOA business analyst, an Architecture Review Board member, a project manager, a project leader, a technical leader, and the like. The BPM tool may receive these specifications through a graphical user interface—a flowchart-style interface, through which a user may specify the steps of the service, inputs and outputs, and relationships by defining a flowchart of the process. The BPM tool may also receive these specifications in a markup language document, such as a BPEL document, or in other ways as will occur to readers of skill in the art. Such a BPM tool enables flexibility and ease of use in specifying a governance process. Once, the service artifact review (121) governance process is modeled, the method of
In the example of
Preparing (306) one or more service artifacts (308) may be carried out in part by any combination of a project manager, project leader, technical leader, or the like. The preparation of service artifacts may include authoring a BRD, DOU, specification of non-functional requirements, a business case for the service, and a justification to a business Domain Owner for the implementation of the service. A business Domain Owner is a person, or group of persons, having authority of a particular ‘domain’ of a business. Business domains are predefined categories within a business which may be defined in various ways: by subject matter, by business responsibilities, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art. The lifecycle of a service in an SOA may be the responsibility of a particular business Domain Owner for various reasons, one of which is that the members of the business domain are the primary consumers of the service.
Preparing (306) service artifacts is said to be carried out “in part” by a project manager, project leader, technical leader, or the like in that automation modules may also carry out some part of the preparation. Consider, for example, an automation module that supports preparation of service artifacts implemented as plug-in for a word processing application. Such a plug-in may be enable direct access to templates of BRDs, DOUs, and the like. Other automation modules which support preparation of service artifacts may also include plug-ins or applications for communicating amongst relevant stakeholders—such as the project manager, project leader, technical leader, and others—preparing the documents. Such an automation module may enable relevant stakeholders to collaborate on such service artifacts in real-time, via a web service, or iteratively via email communications. Other automation modules may, at the behest of a user, format without the user's aid the service artifacts in accordance with service artifact formatting standards. Readers of skill in the art will recognize that although on a few types of automation modules are described here, other types may also be generated to support the step of preparing (306) service artifacts for review.
The modeled service artifact review governance process (121) of
Automation modules that support performance of submitting (310) the service artifacts for review may be generated by the method of
The modeled service artifact review governance process (121) of
In the example of
In the example of
If the priority of the service meets the predefined priority criteria, the example service artifact review governance process (121) of
If the priority of the service does not meet the predefined priority criteria (327), however, the example service artifact review governance process (121) of
Once modeled and once automation modules are generated, the service artifact review governance process (121) in the example of
For further explanation,
In the example of
The example modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse in the example of
Determining (412) whether a deployed service meets the service requirements may also include searching a registry and repository (274) for publicly available service artifacts meeting the service requirements where each service artifact is associated with a deployed service and describes one or more attributes of the deployed service and identifying, from publicly available service artifacts meeting the service requirements during the searching of the registry and repository, one or more candidate deployed services.
If a deployed service meets the requirements, the modeled process (123) of investigating service reuse continues by initiating (414) a subscription to the deployed service. Initiating (414) a subscription to the deployed service may in some SOAs be implemented as a governance process, such as the governance process (127) described in further detail with regard to
If no deployed service meets the service requirements, the modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse in the example of
If no undeployed but developed service meets the service requirements, the modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse in the example of
If an undeployed but developed service meets the service requirements, modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse in the example of
Determining (422) whether the undeployed but developed service is available for service creation may also include searching a registry and repository (274) for non-publicly available service artifacts meeting the service requirements. Each service artifact may be associated with an undeployed but developed service and may describe one or more attributes of the undeployed but developed service. Determining (422) whether the undeployed but developed service is available for service creation may also include identifying, from non-publicly available service artifacts meeting the service requirements during the searching of the registry and repository, one or more candidate undeployed services. Automation modules generated (404) in accordance with the method of
If the undeployed but developed service is available for service creation, the modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse continues by initiating (420) creation of the undeployed but developed service. If, however, an undeployed but developed service is not available for service creation, the modeled governance process (123) of investigating service reuse continues by requesting (424) reuse of the undeployed but developed service. Requesting (424) reuse of the undeployed but developed service may be carried out in part by the SOA COC Architect or the like with support of one or more automation modules generated in accordance with the method of
For further explanation,
A service portfolio may be optimized in various ways including, for example, by reducing duplication of services, reducing or retooling underutilized services, updating services, and so on. To that end, the example modeled governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services includes determining (506) whether a collection of service artifacts matches one or more service artifacts stored in a service registry. The term ‘matches’ here means that the collection of service artifacts and one or more service artifacts stored in the service registry are substantially similar in content. The two need not exactly replicate one another verbatim to be considered a match. Determining (506) whether a collection (508) of service artifacts matches one or more service artifacts stored in a service registry may be carried out in part by a relevant stakeholder, such as a SOA ARB Architect or the like, with the support of one or more automation modules generated (504) in accordance with the method of
If no service artifacts stored in the service registry match the collection of service artifacts, the modeled governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services continues by initiating (510) creation of a service in accordance with the collection of service artifacts. Such a creation of a service may be carried out in embodiments in which the service described by the collection of service artifacts has yet to be created. If, on the other hand, the service described by the collection of service artifacts has been created and no service artifacts in the registry and repository match the collection, no change to the portfolio of services may be necessary. That is, no other currently created service listed in the registry and stored in the repository duplicates the functionality of the service under investigation—the service described the collection of service artifacts.
If one or more service artifacts stored in the service registry does match the collection of service artifacts, however, the modeled governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services continues by selecting (512), in dependence upon predefined action selection criteria (514), a service administration action (516, 518, 520, 522, 524) to perform. A service administration action is a process to be carried out that affects a particular service. In the example of
An action of creating (516) a new service may be selected when the service described by the collection of service artifacts is not yet created, and even in the presence of service artifacts that match the collection of service artifacts, no duplication of services in the SOA would exist if the service was created. That is, notwithstanding a match of service artifacts, the portfolio of services for the governed SOA is lacking a service that fulfills the collection of service artifacts.
An action of subscribing (518) to a deployed service may be selected in instances in which the service described by the collection of the service artifacts is not yet created and the service described by the matching service artifacts—those service artifacts stored the service registry—fulfills the requirements set forth in the collection of service artifacts. In such instances, rather than creating a new service resulting in duplication of services in the service portfolio, a prospective consumer of the service described by the collection of service artifacts may be directed to subscribe to the service described by the matching service artifacts.
An action of retiring (520) a service associated with the collection of service artifacts may be selected in instances in which the service associated with the collection of service artifacts duplicates the functionality of a service associated with the matching service artifacts. The service associated with the collection of service artifacts may be retired (rather than the service associated with the matching service artifacts) for various reasons including, for example, the breadth of documentation describing the service associated with the matching service artifacts in comparison to the collection of service artifacts. The service associated with the collection of service artifacts may also be retired, for example, if the service is less recently updated or less maintained than the service associated with the matching service artifacts. The service associated with the collection of service artifacts may also be retired, for example, if funding or infrastructure for the service is less than the service associated with the matching service artifacts. In contrast, an action of retiring (522) a service associated with the matching service artifacts (rather than the service associated with the collection of service artifacts) may be selected for the same reasons as described above.
An action of creating (524) a new service version of a service associated with the matching service artifacts may be selected when no service exactly satisfying the collection of service artifacts has been created and when the service associated with the matching service artifacts would fulfill the requirements of the collection of service artifacts, if updated.
Prior to initiating any of the service administration actions, the modeled governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services includes obtaining (526) approval of the selected service administration action. Approval of the selected administration action may be requested by an SOA Architect, or the like, from a Domain Owner. Automation modules generated (504) in accordance with the method of
The modeled governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services also includes initiating (528) the selected service administration action. Initiating (528) the selected service administration action may be carried out by an SOA Architect or the like through use of automation modules that provide communications means or said another way, communications channels, with relevant stakeholders responsible for carrying out the selected administration action.
The example governance process (125) of optimizing a portfolio of services may be triggered or initiated at the behest of a Domain Owner or a COC. The governance process (125) in some embodiments, identifies and address under used or obsolete services. The example governance process may also reduce the associated overhead and cost incurred by services that are redundant, under used, obsolete or not addressing specified business needs.
For further explanation,
In the method of
The example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA in the example of
Determining (610) whether the deployed service meets predefined functional requirements (608) may be carried out by performing a functional gap analysis between the collected service artifacts and the predefined functional requirements. A gap analysis is a comparison of one set of data with another to identify gaps between the data sets. In some cases a gap analysis is more qualitative than quantitative due to dissimilarities in data sets. That is, rather than comparing an array of integers to another array of integers, the gap analysis may compare a set of requirements to a set of capabilities or behaviors. In the case of a functional gap analysis, for example, the predefined functional requirements and the collected service artifacts of a deployed service are compared to identify gaps between the two, and more specifically, to determine whether, and to what degree, capabilities of the service satisfy the functional requirements. The functional gap analysis is described as ‘functional’ because the analysis compares functional requirements rather than non-functional. A non-functional gap analysis compares non-functional requirements. Determining (610) whether the deployed service meets predefined functional requirements (608) through use of a functional gap analysis may be carried out in part by a Consumer SOA analyst and a Provider SOA analyst with support from one or more automation module generated (604) in accordance with the method of
If the deployed service does not meet the predefined functional requirements, the modeled process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA in the example of
If the deployed service meets the predefined functional requirements, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA continues by determining (616) whether the deployed service meets predefined non-functional requirements (614). Determining (616) whether the deployed service meets predefined non-functional requirements (614) may be carried out by performing a non-functional gap analysis between the collected service artifacts and the predefined non-functional requirements. Performing a non-functional gap analysis may include determining whether the collective service artifacts associated with the deployed service indicate that the deployed service meets one or more criteria of an SLA. Determining (616) whether the deployed service meets predefined non-functional requirements (614) and performing a non-functional gap analysis may be carried out in part by a Provider Domain Owner and a Consumer Domain Owner with support from one or more automation module generated in accordance with the method of
If the deployed service does not meet the predefined non-functional requirements, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA continues by negotiating (618) a change of the predefined non-functional requirements and determining (622) whether the change was successfully negotiated. Negotiating (618) a change of the predefined non-functional requirements and determining (622) whether the change was successfully negotiated may be carried out with by the Provider Domain Owner and Consumer Domain Owner. Such negotiation may include altering an SLA. Automation module generated in accordance with the method of
If the negotiation (622) succeeds, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service continues by initiating (612) creation of a new service version of the deployed service, where the new service version of the deployed service meets the non-functional requirements.
If the deployed service meets the predefined non-functional requirements, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA continues by creating (620) a subscription request. A subscription request is a data structure that specifies a subscription. Such a data structure may include any of an identification of a consumer, one or more functional or non-functional requirements, an identification of the deployed service to which the request is directed, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art. The creation of such a subscription request may be carried out by an application architect or the like with the support of one or more automation modules. Such automation modules may provide web services, subscription request templates, dynamically generated requests, and so on.
The example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA in the example of
If approval is received, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA continues by creating (630) a subscription to the deployed service. In the example of
If approval is not received, the example modeled governance process (127) of establishing a subscription to a deployed service in the governed SOA continues by recommending (628) a different service. Recommending (628) a different service may be carried out by the Provider SOA Architect with support of one or more automation modules. Such automation modules, for example, may search a registry and repository for similar services to the deployed service having service artifacts that appear, upon an initial high-level search, to meet the predefined functional and non-functional requirements. Once a different deployed service is recommended, the governance process (127) of establishing a subscription request may repeat to insure that recommended process indeed satisfies the predefined functional and non-functional requirements.
For further explanation,
In the method of
In the method of
If a new version of the deployed service is required, the example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA continues by applying (716) versioning guidelines (714) to the new version of the deployed service. Applying versioning guidelines to the new version of the deployed service may include determining whether a version number of the new version of the deployed service is less than a predefined threshold of version numbers for the deployed service and if the version number of the new version of the deployed service is less than the predefined threshold of version numbers for the deployed service, identifying a versioning scheme to follow and identifying a versioning approach. A versioning scheme specifies syntax for version identifiers. Examples of versioning schemes include sequence-based identifiers, data-based schemes, alphanumeric code schemes, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art. Examples of versioning approaches include Universal Description Discovery and Integration (‘UDDI’) as well as namespace approaches and the like.
If a new version of the deployed service is not required, the example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA continues by end-to-end governance lifecycle process (712).
The example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA also includes determining (718) whether the present version of the deployed service will be subsumed by the new version. Determining (718) whether the present version of the deployed service will be subsumed by the new version may be carried out by determining, by the Provider SOA Architect and SOA COC Architect, whether the new service version increases the number of active versions of the service above a predefined threshold (a maximum) of active versions specified in versioning guidelines. Such determination may be performed with the support of one or more automation modules generated (704) in accordance with the method of
If the present version of the deployed service will be subsumed by the new version, the example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA continues by retiring (720) the present version of the deployed service. A Consumer SOA Architect may initiate the retiring (720) of the present version through use of one or more automation modules generated by the method of
If the present version of the deployed service will not be subsumed by the new version, the example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA continues by logging (722) the new version in a registry and repository. Logging (722) the new version in a registry and repository may be carried out by storing service artifacts, service requirements, and the like in the repository. Logging (722) the new version may be carried out in part by a Service Registrar with support of automation modules generated in accordance with the method of
The example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA also includes requesting (724) a service identifier for the new version of the service. A service identifier, a version number for example, is an identification of a version of a service relative to other versions of the same service. The Service Registrar may request (724) the service identifier through communications channels established by one or more automation modules generated in accordance with the method of
The example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA also includes entering (726) service classification information in the registry and repository. In the example modeled governance process (129), the service classification information describes a sector for the new version of the deployed service, a service type for the new version of the deployed service, and a target certification level for the new version of the deployed service. Again, a Service Registrar responsible for activities involving a registry and repository, may carry out the entering (726) of service classification information with the support of automation modules generated in accordance with the method of
The example modeled governance process (129) of creating a new version of a service in a governed SOA also includes updating (728) specification modeling service artifacts and realization modeling service artifacts of the deployed service, refactoring (730) and rationalizing the deployed service; and certifying (732) the new version of the deployed service. Refactoring is a process of modifying a service without modifying the external functional behavior from the perspective of consumers. Rationalizing the deployed service is a process by which a deployed service's existence, implementation, cost, management and so forth is analyzed and confirmed in accordance with predefined standards. Each of the above steps may be carried out in part by a Provider SOA Architect in concert with a SOA COC Architect and in part by automation modules generated in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.
In view of the explanations set forth above, readers will recognize that the benefits of automating governance processes in a governed SOA according to embodiments of the present invention include:
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
It will be understood from the foregoing description that modifications and changes may be made in various embodiments of the present invention without departing from its true spirit. The descriptions in this specification are for purposes of illustration only and are not to be construed in a limiting sense. The scope of the present invention is limited only by the language of the following claims.
This application is a continuation application of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/882,774, filed on Sep. 15, 2010.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5745878 | Hashimoto et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 6363393 | Ribitzky | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6405364 | Bowman-Amuah | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6601233 | Underwood | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6640249 | Bowman-Amuah | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6665861 | Francis et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 7149699 | Barnard et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7580946 | Mansour et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7614047 | Wang | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 7630965 | Erickson et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7647627 | Maida-Smith et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7685604 | Baartman et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7720198 | Schliermann | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7725469 | Colgrave et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7725482 | Smith et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7730123 | Erickson et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7739228 | Erickson et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7761844 | Bove et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7768944 | Hao et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7937673 | Kurshan et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
| 7992133 | Theroux et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8024397 | Erickson et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8069435 | Lai | Nov 2011 | B1 |
| 9171096 | Palanisamy | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 20020120776 | Eggebraaten et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194053 | Barrett et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20040107124 | Sharpe et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193703 | Loewy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050108703 | Hellier | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050154700 | Lele | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203784 | Rackham | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050204048 | Pujol et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050222931 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050223109 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050232046 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20060059253 | Goodman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080352 | Boubez et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112122 | Goldszmidt et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060155725 | Foster et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235733 | Marks | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241931 | Abu el Ata et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242195 | Bove et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271660 | Lajeunesse | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277081 | Pham et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070043724 | Senan et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070069855 | Boland et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070074148 | Morgan | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143474 | Sheng et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070168753 | Herter et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070209059 | Moore et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220479 | Hughes | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070244904 | Durski | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070265868 | Rapp et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288275 | Kumar | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080028329 | Erl | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080028365 | Erl | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080040292 | Nakayashiki | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046259 | Johnston | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052314 | Batabyal | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059378 | D'Alo et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080065466 | Liu et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080069082 | Patrick | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080069124 | Patrick | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080077652 | Grant et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082569 | Mansour et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126147 | Ang et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127047 | Zhang et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172269 | Senan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172621 | Soroker et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270153 | Drapkin et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282219 | Seetharaman et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080294408 | Padmanabhan | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080300933 | Britton et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090043622 | Finlayson et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090063171 | Isom | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064087 | Isom | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100431 | Doyle et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125796 | Day | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158237 | Zhang et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090182565 | Erickson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187823 | Farrell et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090192867 | Farooq et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193057 | Maes | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090198534 | Brown et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090198535 | Brown et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090198537 | Brown et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090198550 | Brown et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254411 | Bhattacharya et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017252 | Chaar | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100049628 | Mannava et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100057522 | Borowski et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100071028 | Brown et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100095266 | Novak | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114586 | Barros et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100125477 | Mousseau et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131854 | Little | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138250 | Brown et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138251 | Brown et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138252 | Brown et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138254 | Brown et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100146037 | Little | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100198730 | Ahmed et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100217636 | Channabasavaiah et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262558 | Edwards | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100305994 | Gaskell | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110093435 | Zha et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20120066145 | Adhikary et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120066146 | Adhikary et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120066147 | Adhikary et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120066663 | Adhikary et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120066671 | Adhikary et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120310710 | Brown et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Channabasavaiah et al., “Migrating to a Service-Oriented Architecture”, On demand operating environment solutions White paper, Apr. 2004, pp. 1-22, IBM Corporation, Somers, NY. |
| Proquest, “COBIT 4.0: Major Update to International Standard Helps Businesses Increase IT Value, Decrease Risk”, PR Newswire Europe Including UK Disclose, Dec. 2005, 3 pages, New York. |
| Cherbakov, et al., “Impact of Service Orientation at the Business Level”, IBM Systems Journal, Dec. 2005, 14 pages, IBM SJ 44-4, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| Ferguson, et al., “Service-Oriented Architecture: Programming Model and Product Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Oct. 21, 2005, pp. 1-24, IBM SJ 44-4, IBM. |
| Freeland, “The New CRM Imperative”, Ultimate CRM Handbook, Chapter I, pp. 3-9, Sep. 2002, Edition: 1, McGraw-Hill, USA. |
| Veryard, “The Component-Based Business: Plug and Play”, Practitioner Series, Dec. 2000, pp. 1-237, ISBN 1-85233-361-8, Springer-Verlag London Berlin Heidelberg. |
| Afshar, et al., “SOA Governance: Framework and Best Practices”, An Oracle White Paper, May 2007, pp. 1-22, Version 1.1, Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA, USA. |
| Durvasula, et al., “SOA Practitioners' Guide Part I Why Services-Oriented Architecture?”, soablueprint.com (online), Sep. 15, 2006, pp. 1-18, URL: http://www.soablueprint.com/whitepapers/SOAPGPart1.pdf. |
| PR Newswire, “TIBCO Empowers Customers With New Model for Accelerating Business Process Management Success”, Apr. 10, 2007, 2 pages, PRNewswire.com, [accessed Aug. 6, 2012], URL: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tibco-empowers-customers-with-new-model-for-accelerating-business-process-management-success-57980817.html. |
| PR Newswire, “Mercury Unveils BTO Strategy for Service Oriented Architecture”, ulitzer.com (online) Oct. 2006, 6 pages, URL: http://zapthink.ulitzer.com/node/281920. |
| Businesswire, “Research and Markets: Cost Reduction is the Key Long-Term Driver of SOA Adoption”, businesswire.com, Feb. 15, 2007, 3 pages, [accessed: Aug. 6, 2012], URL: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070215005402&newsLang=en. |
| Erradi, et al., “SOAF: An Architectural Framework for Service Definition and Realization”, IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'06), Chicago, USA, Sep. 2006, pp. 1-8, IEEE Computer Society. |
| Inaganti, et al., “SOA Maturity Model”, Apr. 2007, BPTrends.com (online), pp. 1-23, URL: http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/04-07-ART-The%20SOA%20MaturityModel-Inagantifinal.pdf. |
| Bieberstein et al., “Executing SOA: A Practical Guide for the Service-Oriented Architect”, May 2008, 27 pages, IBM Press, Armonk, NY. |
| MDH Project Architecture Team, “A Practical Service Oriented Architecture”, Version 1.0, Oct. 2007, 87 pages, Minnesota Department of Health, USA. |
| Brown, et al., “SOA governance: how to oversee successful implementation through proven best practices and methods”, Effective governance through the IBM SOA Governance Management Method Approach White paper, Aug. 2006, 48 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| White, et al. “How Computers Work”, Oct. 2003, 7th Edition, 65 pages, Que Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana. |
| Bass, et al., “Software Architecture in Practice”, chapter 2.3, Architectural Patterns, Reference Models, and Reference Architectures, Second Edition, Apr. 2003, pp. 45-46, Addison Wesley/Pearson Education, Boston, Massachusetts. |
| Josuttis, “SOA in Practice: The Art of Distributed System Design”, Aug. 2007, 343 pages, First Edition, O'Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA. |
| Hashmi, et al. “Abstracting Workflows: Unifying Bioinformatics Task Conceptualization and Specification Through Semantic Web Services”, W3C Workshop on Semantic Web for Life Sciences, Oct. 27-28, 2004, 7 pages, Cambridge, Massachusetts. |
| Burns et al., “The Essentials of an SOA COE”, Oct. 2004, 16 pages, IBM Global Services, Somers, NY. |
| Holley et al., “IBM Assessments for Service Oriented Architecture”, IBM Business Consulting Services, v5, 2004 (month unknown), 15 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| Holley et al., “IBM Assessments for Service Oriented Architecture”, IBM Business Consulting Services, 2004 (month unknown), 17 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “Establishing SOA CoE & Governance or Need to validate the asset name and the engagement model (scope) as defined asset”, IBM Business Consulting Services, Apr. 2004, 41 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “Assessment for AllAmerica Service Oriented Architecture”, IBM Business Consulting Services, Jun. 2004, 10 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “Avis Futures SOA Assessment IBM Assessments for Service Oriented Architecture”, IBM Business Consulting Services, Jun. 2004, 36 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “IBM Strategy and Planning for Services Oriented Architecture”, Jun. 2004, IBM Business Consulting Services, 37 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “IBM Assessments for Service Oriented Architecture part 2—criteria and leading practices”, IBM Business Consulting Services, 2004 (month unknown), 35 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| IBM, “Establish SOA Center of Excellence & SOA Governance”, IBM Business Consulting Services, Jun. 2004, 30 pages, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140257915 A1 | Sep 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 12882774 | Sep 2010 | US |
| Child | 14280798 | US |
