Fuente: ZDNET.COM via news.google.es
"We see SOA (Service-Oriented Arquitecture) governance as the ability to understand why you're doing it and who is allowed to do what, and then adding traceability and management view into the SOA stack. It's about how it's done, why it's done, who did it and where did it happen, more than what it is that did happen," he told Rich Seeley of SearchWebServices.
"The first thing you need for governance is the ability to put all the artifacts somewhere so you can actually see them in a cohesive manner…. Once you have information in the repository, you can really start looking at it in a more holistic way, and say: 'Okay why did it change? Who changed it? What does it mean that they did this? Was it done under an agreed-upon workflow and policy?'"
Levy said BEA intends to support the use of dashboards to manage and monitor changes within the SOA repository. "You'll see more 'business intelligence' types of views on top of the central repository and you'll see policy definition against that," he said. "There's no difference between policy against change management policy and policy against security access. One is an IT policy, the other is a governance policy, but the concept of policy applying to the artifact did not really change."
Un comentario interesante:
... I think it's oversimplifying to suggest there will be one repository to report off of. And there's no way (in practice) to create a data warehouse for SOA. So I think it's more likely you'll see federated repositories, similar to what the ITIL/CMDB (Configuration Management Database) folks are doing. You'll need to capability to query across several, some in relational and some in XML, in real time, to create those dashboard views people are looking for
