More I think about web 2.0 and SOA, more I get concerned. What with loosely coupled services available anywhere, anytime replacing the applications. Is it all desired?
Well I guess, when the hype dies down, the CIOs will realise the necessity and usefulness of these ideas are bounded within some context. One does not really want to make services available to all and sundry and create unpredictable demands for your infrastructure. Not to mention, security and privacy nightmares.
As is with any networked system of systems, one must draw boundaries. One must define authorisation, ownership and access rights withing these boundaries. There really cannot be anywhere, anytime services. The services are walled, the Web 2.0 is walled. Or else it is pretty nigh unusable.
These are my thoughts about various issues faced by an enterprise architect.
Here you will find thoughts related to enterprise architecture, TOGAF, SOA, BPM, MDA, MDD, Web 2.0 etc.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
What does Web 2.0 mean for enterprises architect
A very concise defintion of Web 2.0 is that it treats web as a platform and lets user control the data. There are services instead of applications, and user composes applications from these services per his need, using web as platform. The particpation from various sources to achieve a result collaboratively is another core theme of Web 2.0 combined with a better usability and richer experience.
What really does Web 2.0 mean to an enterprise. Is it for real? What are the benefits for enetrprises accruing because of Web 2.0? What are the pitfalls?
There an any number of instances in an enterprise when you hear users complaining about lack of availability of data. Sometimes its available at wrong granularity, sometimes it is not as current as required and sometimes it is not available when required. Surely those users will be elated at definition of Web 2.0. The authorisation and authentication is the only thing between user and data. However, the granularity guarantee is another tricky bit. If suppliers dont get it right, data will be useless for users and conseqeuntly there will be differential service proliferation. If it is too granular, performance penalties are to be borne by users. So its not all that rosy. Huh?
In Web 2.0 world, a supplier cannot control usage of its services. So once a service is out there in open, one can not easily change it without affeting known and unknown users. So supplier have got limited chances to get service definitions right. Otherwise there will be horizontal service proliferation.
AJAX promise of desktop quality user experience in Web 2.0 is seen to be believed. But it does open a can of worm on security front. Which needs to be addressed.
Collaboration between stakedolders in an enterprise is sought after. But it needs to be bounded by authorisation and authentication. For example disintermediation between stakeholders, sometimes desired, may threaten the business itself and hence discouraged at other times. What kind of collaboration is allowed and what is disallowed is tricky to define, much less enforce. Data privacy issues are not to be taken lightly and need a serious thought.
So an enterprise architect needs to be aware of these broad issues before plunging headlong into Web 2.0 .
What really does Web 2.0 mean to an enterprise. Is it for real? What are the benefits for enetrprises accruing because of Web 2.0? What are the pitfalls?
There an any number of instances in an enterprise when you hear users complaining about lack of availability of data. Sometimes its available at wrong granularity, sometimes it is not as current as required and sometimes it is not available when required. Surely those users will be elated at definition of Web 2.0. The authorisation and authentication is the only thing between user and data. However, the granularity guarantee is another tricky bit. If suppliers dont get it right, data will be useless for users and conseqeuntly there will be differential service proliferation. If it is too granular, performance penalties are to be borne by users. So its not all that rosy. Huh?
In Web 2.0 world, a supplier cannot control usage of its services. So once a service is out there in open, one can not easily change it without affeting known and unknown users. So supplier have got limited chances to get service definitions right. Otherwise there will be horizontal service proliferation.
AJAX promise of desktop quality user experience in Web 2.0 is seen to be believed. But it does open a can of worm on security front. Which needs to be addressed.
Collaboration between stakedolders in an enterprise is sought after. But it needs to be bounded by authorisation and authentication. For example disintermediation between stakeholders, sometimes desired, may threaten the business itself and hence discouraged at other times. What kind of collaboration is allowed and what is disallowed is tricky to define, much less enforce. Data privacy issues are not to be taken lightly and need a serious thought.
So an enterprise architect needs to be aware of these broad issues before plunging headlong into Web 2.0 .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Friday, July 21, 2006
Walled web 2.0
More I think about web 2.0 and SOA, more I get concerned. What with loosely coupled services available anywhere, anytime replacing the applications. Is it all desired?
Well I guess, when the hype dies down, the CIOs will realise the necessity and usefulness of these ideas are bounded within some context. One does not really want to make services available to all and sundry and create unpredictable demands for your infrastructure. Not to mention, security and privacy nightmares.
As is with any networked system of systems, one must draw boundaries. One must define authorisation, ownership and access rights withing these boundaries. There really cannot be anywhere, anytime services. The services are walled, the Web 2.0 is walled. Or else it is pretty nigh unusable.
Well I guess, when the hype dies down, the CIOs will realise the necessity and usefulness of these ideas are bounded within some context. One does not really want to make services available to all and sundry and create unpredictable demands for your infrastructure. Not to mention, security and privacy nightmares.
As is with any networked system of systems, one must draw boundaries. One must define authorisation, ownership and access rights withing these boundaries. There really cannot be anywhere, anytime services. The services are walled, the Web 2.0 is walled. Or else it is pretty nigh unusable.
Friday, July 07, 2006
What does Web 2.0 mean for enterprises architect
A very concise defintion of Web 2.0 is that it treats web as a platform and lets user control the data. There are services instead of applications, and user composes applications from these services per his need, using web as platform. The particpation from various sources to achieve a result collaboratively is another core theme of Web 2.0 combined with a better usability and richer experience.
What really does Web 2.0 mean to an enterprise. Is it for real? What are the benefits for enetrprises accruing because of Web 2.0? What are the pitfalls?
There an any number of instances in an enterprise when you hear users complaining about lack of availability of data. Sometimes its available at wrong granularity, sometimes it is not as current as required and sometimes it is not available when required. Surely those users will be elated at definition of Web 2.0. The authorisation and authentication is the only thing between user and data. However, the granularity guarantee is another tricky bit. If suppliers dont get it right, data will be useless for users and conseqeuntly there will be differential service proliferation. If it is too granular, performance penalties are to be borne by users. So its not all that rosy. Huh?
In Web 2.0 world, a supplier cannot control usage of its services. So once a service is out there in open, one can not easily change it without affeting known and unknown users. So supplier have got limited chances to get service definitions right. Otherwise there will be horizontal service proliferation.
AJAX promise of desktop quality user experience in Web 2.0 is seen to be believed. But it does open a can of worm on security front. Which needs to be addressed.
Collaboration between stakedolders in an enterprise is sought after. But it needs to be bounded by authorisation and authentication. For example disintermediation between stakeholders, sometimes desired, may threaten the business itself and hence discouraged at other times. What kind of collaboration is allowed and what is disallowed is tricky to define, much less enforce. Data privacy issues are not to be taken lightly and need a serious thought.
So an enterprise architect needs to be aware of these broad issues before plunging headlong into Web 2.0 .
What really does Web 2.0 mean to an enterprise. Is it for real? What are the benefits for enetrprises accruing because of Web 2.0? What are the pitfalls?
There an any number of instances in an enterprise when you hear users complaining about lack of availability of data. Sometimes its available at wrong granularity, sometimes it is not as current as required and sometimes it is not available when required. Surely those users will be elated at definition of Web 2.0. The authorisation and authentication is the only thing between user and data. However, the granularity guarantee is another tricky bit. If suppliers dont get it right, data will be useless for users and conseqeuntly there will be differential service proliferation. If it is too granular, performance penalties are to be borne by users. So its not all that rosy. Huh?
In Web 2.0 world, a supplier cannot control usage of its services. So once a service is out there in open, one can not easily change it without affeting known and unknown users. So supplier have got limited chances to get service definitions right. Otherwise there will be horizontal service proliferation.
AJAX promise of desktop quality user experience in Web 2.0 is seen to be believed. But it does open a can of worm on security front. Which needs to be addressed.
Collaboration between stakedolders in an enterprise is sought after. But it needs to be bounded by authorisation and authentication. For example disintermediation between stakeholders, sometimes desired, may threaten the business itself and hence discouraged at other times. What kind of collaboration is allowed and what is disallowed is tricky to define, much less enforce. Data privacy issues are not to be taken lightly and need a serious thought.
So an enterprise architect needs to be aware of these broad issues before plunging headlong into Web 2.0 .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)