There's been a rash of articles on the Web 2.0 and SOA due to John deVaDoss' (Microsoft)  recent comments.  While I just went to the eWeek site and couldn't find the article, I know I saw that table that you mentioned and I shook my head as well.  If I recall correctly, the article kept flip-flopping on whether SOA and Web 2.0 were complementary or not, and that table didn't help at all.

It's a shame that the waters were muddied by that article, because I actually think some of the discussion going on around SOA and Web 2.0 is very good.  I've been making some notes in prep for a blog entry, but have had some other things to take care of, so it's still on the back burner.  I've got strong roots on the user side of the world, so tying SOA concepts back to areas where users have to interact with systems is always interesting for me.

-tb

On Feb 15, 2006, at 3:56 PM, JP Morgenthal wrote:

Did anyone catch eWeek’s horrible article on SOA and Web 2.0 in the 2/13 issue?  Am I crazy or is this the stupidest thing this publication ever printed?  Their chart comparing SOA to Web 2.0 is downright asinine.  They actually listed the communication mechanism for SOA as SOAP and Web 2.0 as REST.  Ummmm, when did SOAP become SOA-centric?  Or better yet, when did SOA become SOAP-centric.

 

JP

 

JP Morgenthal
Managing Partner

<image001.jpg>

<image002.gif>

Work: 703-648-1520

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM: jmorgenthal (Skype)

<image003.gif>
 Professional Profile
My Blog

Avorcor, Inc.
12110 Sunset Hills Road
Suite 450
Reston, VA 20190 USA

See who we know in common

Want a signature like this? 

 



SPONSORED LINKS
Computer softwareComputer aided design softwareComputer job
SoaService-oriented architecture


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS







SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to