I'm not sure the details of what was done, but what you describe seems pretty superficial and the SOA view doesn't have to be instead of the CBA View. One might have a "Patient" component that serves the patient portion of some of the higher level services such as Hospitality, Pathology, etc. Otherwise one may find many redundancies in the particular SOA view you have described. We have in many cases built a set of services from various aggregation of lower level components. This gives us great reusability of lower level components while providing a fairly customized set of higher level services. So I think there is a place for various "views" of the business and architecture involved. Particularly if one is striving for some form of interoperability, reusability and an enduring architecture.
-Dave Ashley at Metamaxim wrote: > I was recently involved in a workshop looking at the relationship > between "service oriented architecture" (SOA) and "component based > architecture" (CBA) as enterprise architecture approaches. > > We took, as an example, a hospital and tried developing both SOA and > CBA views. This is roughly what emerged: > > 1. SOA View > -------------------- > In the SOA view the hospital was viewed as a set of services, which > could potentially be provided by different suppliers. Example services > were: Hospitality, Catering, Pathology, Theatre, Specialist. (Note > that we took a "Business" view of services rather than an "IT" view, > along the lines suggested by Pat Helland of Microsoft). We derived a > IT architecture from this, by aligning the data and functionality to > the services. This led to an architecture in which the > data/functionality for a given patient was distributed to different > services: "Hospitality" owning information about patient accommodation > and nursing routine; "Catering" about dietary requirements; > "Specialist" owning medical notes; etc. > > 2. CBA View > -------------------- > The CBA view (loosely based on the approach recommended in the book > "UML Components" by Daniels and Cheeseman) drove the architecture from > the core business entities and built services around them. In this > approach, basic patient data and functionality was not distributed but > owned by a single "Patient" component. > > This example suggests that SOA and CBA lead to different results when > applied to enterprise IT architectures. I would be interested in any > views on the following questions: > > Is this a valid/useful conclusion? > If so, can SOA be regarded as "superior" to CBA as an architectural > approach? > > Any views/comments welcome. > > Rgds > Ashley > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
