SSWG Notes - 2009-11-24

• Date and Time:  November 24, 2009, 10:30-12:00
• Location:  Plant and Environmental Sciences, Room 2005
• Agenda

Review of Our Charge and Work Plan

• David Walker reviewed the chargeand work planfrom the wiki.  Our primary goal is to foster 
• Some concern was expressed that the SSWG will conduct interesting discussions, but that there will be little impact.  Others, though, emphasized that things are changing, and we have opportunities:
  • We are starting to see cross-organizational collaborations on campus like the Identity and Access Management project and Kuali.
  • The current budget crisis has made many people realize that we can no longer do "business as usual;" things have to change.
  • If the SSWG can make consensus-based recommendations in the relatively short term, we're likely to get a receptive ear.  If we wait too long, though, someone else will likely impose others' recommendations on us.
• Our first work item, platform strategy, is likely not the most important issue we will address.  It is, however, of current interest among the members of UCD's executive management, so we are starting there and will use it as a springboard to introduce other issues.

Platform Strategy

• Thoughts about Application Platformswas used to structure the discussion.  David Walker will be drafting a strawman statement on platforms from the SSWG for finalization in our next meeting.  The following are specific points that were made during the discussion:
  • Assuming that we establish interoperability standards, the choice of platform does not have a major impact on interoperability or sharing of software.  Reuse, however, is different, as the ability to reuse software depends more on the availability of infrastructure, expertise, and support.
  • Describing a platform only by its name (e.g., Java or .NET) is not sufficient.  We need to specify canonical platform configurations for use at UCD.
  • We will address the following platforms.  They represent what we believe to be the primary application develop platforms at UC Davis, although they may not all be recommended for future applications.
    • Java
    • .NET
    • ColdFusion
    • Oracle Forms
  • For the purpose of this analysis, we will not consider the Oracle database manager, itself, to be a platform.  Database managers will be considered components of platforms.
  • We will consider the following contexts for each of the platforms
    • UCD-wide, core administrative systems
    • Applications that are shared among multiple colleges and departments
    • Applications that are reused across multiple colleges and departments
    • Applications that are used locally within a single college or department
  • In addition to these contexts, we will consider any impacts the criticality, sensitivity, or scal of the application might have on platform selection.
• It will be important to emphasize follow-on analyses by the SSWG, since platform by itself does not result in interoperability, sharing, and reuse.  These follow-on analyses include:
  • Non-technical advice for colleges and departments that are developing applications that they would like to offer for sharing or reuse.  This would include roles and responsibilities, cost sharing models, service expectations, end-user support, etc.
  • Interoperability standards, particularly for interactions with core applications and middleware.
  • Definitive descriptions of the supported platforms, including configuration, developer support and documentation, etc.
• Concern was raised about setting standards for things that are not yet operational.  Of course, we will not do that, but we will use roadmaps to document planned directions and future standard setting.  This will require us to take such schedules more seriously than has been done at times in the past.

Frequency and Format of Future Meetings

• We ran out of time for a full discussion of future meetings.  We will meet again in December, however, to finalize our statement on platforms.