Difference between revisions of "Implementation FAQ"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This currently contains a set of brainstormed points that can be turned into a FAQ for implementation. The first draft of this page was created on the fly in the [[Implementation Committee]], partly as a group learning exercise to establish that we could develop the content in this way. | This currently contains a set of brainstormed points that can be turned into a FAQ for implementation. The first draft of this page was created on the fly in the [[Implementation Committee]], partly as a group learning exercise to establish that we could develop the content in this way. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Source and target systems lack rich semantics == | == Source and target systems lack rich semantics == | ||
Revision as of 15:44, 25 May 2006
This currently contains a set of brainstormed points that can be turned into a FAQ for implementation. The first draft of this page was created on the fly in the Implementation Committee, partly as a group learning exercise to establish that we could develop the content in this way.
Contents
- 1 Source and target systems lack rich semantics
- 2 cost benefit ratio - startup costs are very high
- 3 version 3 documentation not as easy to use as V2 documents
- 4 information overload
- 5 learning curve
- 6 fill the blanks transforms
- 7 V2 implementation profiles are easy to read
- 8 get some example implementation guides on the wiki
- 9 how to write an implementation guide
- 10 selling point for V3
Source and target systems lack rich semantics
Black and white TV to HDTV to black and white
cost benefit ratio - startup costs are very high
Have a running system using V2, how do I justify moving to V3, esp as V2 just keeps getting better.
version 3 documentation not as easy to use as V2 documents
In v2.3.1 as a PDF -- one big document and using the find button is a great way to find what you want. This is particularly good as a single document.
- It would seem the implementers need to press Pubs/tooling somewhat harder to get a search option in the standard publication. This has been discussed before as far as I know, but the timing of such a sloution is unclear. Rene spronk 12:46, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
information overload
How much information has to be shared with a trading partner. If the trading partner is V3 knowledgeable is it easier to do.
learning curve
Implementers have to understand the RIM classes and attributes
fill the blanks transforms
V3 startup for implementers can be done by creating “fill the blanks” transforms.
- This is very pragmatic. I'm not aware that this approach is being addressed in any of the implementation oriented Tutorial. It probably needs to be discussed, as quick-and-dirty implementation methods tend to be used more than theoretically flawless implementations... Rene spronk 12:59, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
V2 implementation profiles are easy to read
It is
- What does this mean for v3 implementations? We just have to make sure v3 implementation guides are easy to read. Rene spronk 12:49, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
get some example implementation guides on the wiki
- Good idea, the only ones I have on offer are however in Dutch. The use of a realm-specific language is one of the key features of an implementation guide. Rene spronk 12:57, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
how to write an implementation guide
- Added technical guide
- Added conformance profile guide
- Added wrapper documentation
selling point for V3
What is the real value of the reference model in V3 – what is the life of the system – this can be a long time for strategic programs. These need to be future-proofed. Action: what does the marketing committee have on the rationale for using V3.
Two documents from the Marketing Committee's document page:
