User Tools

Site Tools


notes-2012-03-21

Notes from the Meeting on Wednesday March 21 2011, Reston, VA

Attendees

Review of Standards and Gap Analysis

We reviewed standards and identified gaps roughly by area.

Performance Monitoring

General consensus was that cloud magnifies the need for monitoring, both at the provider side and on the workload side. Various terms to describe this were loss of “Command & Control” (Nick) or “Haptics” (Tobias) as well as increased need for “Situational Awareness” (term used by the DoD).

  • Observation: provider (cloud) abstraction and workload (application) expectations do not match. Applications are typically developed with tacit assumptions regarding their hosting infrastructure or platform in mind. Which side is going to adapt?
  • Provider side: providers should standardize on their metrics so consumers can understand services delivered and compare them. These metrics would
    • Would include pieces of evidence to understand SLAs
    • Could be packed into profiles, like the UML DoD profile, etc. (Nick)
    • Should use existing standards to define those metrics, e.g. Semantics for Business Vocabulary and Rules (SVBR), Insurance [FIXME_Nick?], SysML, SOAML, etc.
    • As a result we may not need as much new standards as new data that allows us to apply existing standards to the new cloud domain
  • Application side
    • Arne: perhaps Telko-ML; Telko had these needs for years across providers
    • Nick: BPMN may be of help, including metrics around that
    • Arne: Service expressions around Fault Tolerance and QoS (OMG) – has generic language to express business process performance

Governance

  • What are the metrics that can be exposed?
  • Matt: there is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and National Information Exchange Model (NIEM, which is now pursued at OMG)
    • Those standards are mandatory to get grants etc.
  • Tobias: need to ensure that standards aren't obsoleted by technological development
  • Nick: (presents a model they used at the Navy)
    • Table with 3 columns (Regulation, Execution, Compliance) and 5 rows (Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Information, Data)
    • Their Claims/Arguments/Evidence model fits nicely in the lower left corner
    • Standards could address speed of evolution with a similar framework, i.e. focus on claims, not evidence

(BREAK)

Nick suggests that at next meeting the group present to every other team in order to raise interest and increase participation.

Application Marketplace

General discussion of use cases. The discussion was interrupted by a presentation by Vijay Mehra on NIEM.

Presentation on NIEM by Vijay Mehra

(LUNCH BREAK)

notes-2012-03-21.txt · Last modified: 2012/03/21 17:01 by admin