Difference between revisions of "Viewpoint Advocacy Groups"

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 8: Line 8:


:* Document rationale for architectural decisions.
:* Document rationale for architectural decisions.
:* Integrate the requirements of each viewpoint from rationale into tasks.
:* Integrate the requirements of each viewpoint group.
:* Advocate and document conflicts between each viewpoint.
:* Negotiate and document conflicts between each viewpoint.
:* Integrate feedback from the various viewpoint advocacy groups.
:* Integrate feedback from the various viewpoint advocacy groups.
:* Produce a coherent architecture.
:* Produce a coherent architecture.
Line 32: Line 32:
::* Language, modeling techniques, representation method or tools used within this viewpoint
::* Language, modeling techniques, representation method or tools used within this viewpoint
::* Source for the viewpoint
::* Source for the viewpoint
::* Use Cases
: '''Optional''':
: '''Optional''':
::* Consistency/completeness tests for the viewpoint
::* Consistency/completeness tests for the viewpoint

Revision as of 11:51, 12 October 2007

(This is an early draft document, created for feedback purposes. It does not reflect a consensus recommendation, or statement of policy at this time.)

Stakeholders in the Architecture have various agendas, goals, and viewpoints. These views are critical to the design of the new grid. This proposal is to create tasks to focus on specific requirements. The list of Viewpoint Advocacy Tasks may grow and shrink during the course of this project. The idea here is to provide a framework to address specific concerns in a systematic way.

Purpose of Viewpoint Advocacy

The core goals of the AWG are as follows:

  • Document rationale for architectural decisions.
  • Integrate the requirements of each viewpoint group.
  • Negotiate and document conflicts between each viewpoint.
  • Integrate feedback from the various viewpoint advocacy groups.
  • Produce a coherent architecture.

A successful Viewpoint Advocacy Group requires:

  • To present a set of related concerns about the system in the form of a clear viewpoint.
  • To document architectural specifications that stem from this viewpoint.
  • To consider the architectural needs of likely implementations that fulfill the specifications.
  • To operate in a way that allows for alternate implementations that satisfy the viewpoint.
  • To work with the core goals to document views and requirements that conflict or are inconsistent.
  • To review the core goals against the work output to ensure that the view's requirements are met.
  • The end result of the above is an architectural description which reveals the architecture from this viewpoint.

Defining a Viewpoint

A good viewpoint might include the following elements: (borrowing freely from Emery):

Required:
  • Name of the viewpoint
  • List of stakeholders holding this viewpoint
  • List of concerns addressed by this viewpoint
  • Language, modeling techniques, representation method or tools used within this viewpoint
  • Source for the viewpoint
  • Use Cases
Optional:
  • Consistency/completeness tests for the viewpoint
  • Evaluation/analysis techniques
  • Heuristics, patterns, other guidelines

List of VA-Groups

  • Lorem
  • Ipsum