what about the notion "that a process is a service" and business process are exposed as services. How does that fit into your definition.
cheers </jima> Keith Harrison-Broninski wrote: > patrickdlogan wrote: > >>>I would interest to know whether people find it useful to talk about >>>processes and services as distinct concepts in an enterprise >>>architecture sense? Does it pay to make the distinction? >>> >>> >>First, keep them distinct. >> >>Second, define them because one person's definition of "process" is >>likely to differ from another's. >> >>We may need to make five or six things distinct, not just one or two. >> >>-Patrick >> > +1. We've already heard 2 completely different concept of process, > haven't we. Ash says, "The business people manage the processes, while > the technology people manage the services", while Gregg says, "multiple > services live in a single JVM process." > > Mind you, this group's attempts at defining "service" have not been very > successful to date, so we're just as likely to get mired down in > definitions of "process". Myself, I'd go for simplicity, and stay away > from IT when thinking about it. Something like: > > service = work provided on a contract basis > process = a collection of related activities > > -- > > All the best > Keith > > http://keith.harrison-broninski.info > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture>" > on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > 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/
