Exactly, thanks for pointing that out JP. What's with the "+1" though?
-- Loek. --- In [email protected], "JP Morgenthal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1. Review the past discussion between myself, Gervas, Eric, & Todd on this > issue. SOA does not have an implicit relationship with SW. As I defined in > the SOA Infrastructure thread, SOA is a way to design any system, be it > software or any other. > > JP > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > loek_bakker > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Trolling for flames > > I think SOA is about more than just SW architecture. That is where > it differs from OO and CBD for instance. There is a very clear > business element in SOA (or there should be!) that goes beyond SW > architecture. To me SOA answers the HOW question that is related to > the answer to the WHAT question that is described in Enterprise > Architecture. > > --Loek. > > --- In [email protected], Jerry Zhu > <jerryyz@> wrote: > > > > SOA is sw architecture that captures the functional > > requriements and also poses nonfunctional requriements > > such as security, scalibility, performance etc. > > Systems architeucture describes what hosts the > > operation of what sw architecture describes and what > > implements the nonfunctional requirements. > > > > Jerry Zhu > > > > --- loek_bakker <loek_bakker@> wrote: > > > > > Let's get back to Anne's remark: I don't think SOA > > > Infrastructure is > > > the right term. I would name it service-oriented > > > infrastructure. > > > Usually an infrastructure is part of an enterprise > > > architecture, so > > > to me it does not make sense to name it > > > service-oriented > > > architecture infrastructure. So probably I agree > > > with Ron. > > > > > > Loek. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > [email protected], > > > Jerry Zhu > > > <jerryyz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > When we talk about architecture we need to be > > > aware of > > > > the context. Is it about software application or > > > > enterprise wide IT planning? Each has different > > > kinds > > > > of architectures. In software application, for > > > > example, there should be three kinds of > > > architectures: > > > > data, software, and system. For enterprise, there > > > > could be more architectures as defined in FEAF. > > > > > > > > Infrastructure could refer to technology > > > architecture > > > > in EA. It may also refer to application's system > > > > architecture. When we talk about buildings, there > > > > maybe only one architecture. Building are things > > > or > > > > simple systems. Business or a software system is > > > a > > > > complex system that needs to be viewed in > > > > multi-perspectives, hence multiple architectures. > > > > > > > > Jerry Z. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think it is wholly unhelpful to mix these > > > terms. > > > > > Let me explain > > > > > further. There is a famous building in Paris > > > (the > > > > > Pompideux centre). It > > > > > is a building that has an architecture which is > > > > > something that > > > > > architects produced. It's infrastructure is > > > visible > > > > > on the outside of > > > > > the building - unusual because most are embedded > > > or > > > > > on the inside. The > > > > > architecture was the blue print by which the > > > > > structural engineers and > > > > > builders delivered what was required. The > > > > > architecture simply stated > > > > > that the infrastructure was to be put on the > > > outside > > > > > and gave a clear > > > > > description of what that meant. > > > > > > > > > > Clearly we do not talk about the architecture > > > > > infrastructure of the > > > > > Pompidu Centre being on the outside. We do talk > > > > > about the > > > > > infrastructure being on the outside. The danger > > > is > > > > > that we further > > > > > promote poor understanding as to what is meant > > > by > > > > > architecture and we > > > > > confuse it with infrastructure. Only this week I > > > > > heard a CEO confuse > > > > > the two thinking that the infrastructure was the > > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > > > > Whilst I am on the topic I would like to make > > > sure > > > > > we are all of one > > > > > mind. Architecture is not something that we do. > > > It > > > > > is not a verb. It is > > > > > an artifact that is produced in the course of > > > > > building a system. > > > > > According to TOGAF it is "A formal description > > > of a > > > > > system". According > > > > > to UML it "the organizational structure of a > > > > > system". Architecting is > > > > > something that Architects do and the output of > > > what > > > > > they do is an > > > > > Architecture. I suggested at Web Services on > > > Wall > > > > > Street and I have > > > > > still to hear anyone counter this - I'd love to > > > have > > > > > a debate and learn > > > > > new tricks from those more learned than I - that > > > > > there is not A in SOA. > > > > > There is no clear, precise way within the > > > accepted > > > > > tools sets that can > > > > > be said to define the SOA space, that are being > > > used > > > > > or can be used to > > > > > "formally describe a system" or to describe "the > > > > > organizational > > > > > structure of a system". > > > > > > > > > > It would be very nice if in this group of > > > interested > > > > > parties we could > > > > > actually establish what we mean by architecture > > > and > > > > > then be clear about > > > > > how this might differ from the prevailing wisdom > > > of > > > > > TOGAF, UML, OMG and > > > > > others. And if it doesn't how one might actually > > > > > encode an > > > > > Architecture. Is UML sufficient? Can we > > > describe > > > > > all of the > > > > > interactions that occur between a set of > > > services > > > > > using UML in an > > > > > unambiguous way? Could we do with BPEL or BPMN? > > > > > Could we do with > > > > > WS-CDL? > > > > > > > > > > Why should we care? Pretty simple really. When > > > you > > > > > Architect in the > > > > > world of civil engineering, electrical > > > engineering > > > > > and so on, you use a > > > > > formal description of the system (not all the > > > detail > > > > > but enough) to > > > > > simulate and test. This is how Architects find > > > that > > > > > the stress levels > > > > > on a specific beam are too high or find that > > > they > > > > > have over specified > > > > > some tolerance can reduce the cost of a > > > component. > > > > > Without such a > > > > > description this cannot be done. I would content > > > > > that we should do the > > > > > same in software. If you cannot write down your > > > > > Architecture then you > > > > > do not know enough about what you are doing, and > > > you > > > > > will have a high > > > > > risk of failure because of this. > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can do better and make the dream of > > > SOA > > > > > a reality in a > > > > > lower cost and lower risk way. In effect I think > > > we > > > > > can put the A back > > > > > into SOA as opposed to continual talk of SOA > > > when we > > > > > really only mean > > > > > Service Orientation - which is a step higher > > > than > > > > > Object-Orientation. > > > > > > > > > > The above rantings are not just the work of a > > > > > demented long in the > > > > > tooth perhaps should retire too old software > > > guy. > > > > > Rather they are an > > > > > extract of many discussions with many practicing > > > > > Architects who deliver > > > > > real systems (not software products) that > > > deliver > > > > > real business benefit > > > > > to real customers. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts please ......... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Steve T > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Mar 2006, at 13:56, Ron Schmelzer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > 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/
