Well written, that man! I suspect that if we had a thread on the anatomy and features of some lovely actress, it would degenerate into a Web Style vs. SOAP debate.
Important though these protocol issues are, as Ron points out, if we are going to sell SOA to business (you might hate the concept of "selling", but without sales, there is no revenue, no jobs and ultimately none of the worthwhile material things in life), "we have to step it up a notch". This means, as I have pointed out on many an occasion, that we have to look at the upper layers and see what business benefits the whole exercise brings. This is one of the factors that will separate our Conference in Andorra from Stefan's doubtless wonderful techy event in Munich. We will discuss such topics as the relationship between SOA and the business process layer, and the resulting benefits with respect to process and business agility. One of the star speakers will be Keith who will show the world how to..... (sorry, classified at this stage :). BTW, you may have noticed I often turn threads into a plug for the Conference, just as certain of you turn them into protocol battlefields:). There is a reason for that - you as individuals and Members of this Group have the opportunity of having a direct impact on it. In effect the whole idea for the Conference has come out of this Group. Thanks for all your effort and inspiration! BTW, you will have the opportunity for a full live-scale protocol battle as well (but no beautiful actresses, I regret to write). Now, to get back to the business in hand, I seem to have first seen that Zachman chart many moons ago. I am sure many of you are intimately familiar with the methodology and can contribute to this discussion on the matter. Gervas --- In [email protected], Ron Schmelzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heh, only on *THIS* list could a ZapFlash talking about the abstract > nature of architecture and the application of enterprise architecture > somehow get turned into a discussion of REST and protocols. > > Anyone care to comment on the basic premise of the ZapFlash? Namely that > you can apply the Zachman Framework to SOA and vice-versa? > > If we ever plan to sell SOA to the business, we have to step it up a > notch. Not to detract from the REST discussion here, but folks, we've > already been through that numerous times. > > Ron > > Michael Champion wrote: > > I'm talking about PURISTS who believe that SQLis not compliant with > > the relational model (c.f. C.J. Date and the crew at dbdebunk.com > > <http://dbdebunk.com>). Likewise I'm talking about people who argue > > that HTTP should be used to "transfer" resource representations rather > > than "transport" objects and methods. > > > > Obviously SQL and HTTP are successful and will live for decades at > > least. What is less clear is whether the advice of those who derive > > recommendations from the abstract principles of the underlying > > theories (as opposed to emipircally demonstrated successes) is to be > > taken particularly seriously. > > > > To put it another way: Most code is not particularly compliant with > > the principles of OO design; most databases are not highly normalized > > in acoordance with relational theory, and most successful websites use > > HTTP in a non-RESTful way. Is this a problem, i.e. could they do > > better if they played by "the rules", or do the rules only apply in an > > idealized world? Don't we need an answer to this kind of > > question before worrying about whether Zachman has a nice checklist of > > things to think about or a rigorous conceptual framework that one > > should adhere to? > > > > p.s. There's still time to submit your thoughts / experiences on the > > subject of how all this XML / web services / REST stuff really works > > in the enterprise-y world for the XML 2006 conference - > > http://www.idealliance.org/xmlusa/06/call/ > > > > > > On 6/16/06, *patrickdlogan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > ...he reminded me of a RESTifarian (or a relational model purist for > > > > > > > > > > Not much evidence that the relational model and the HTTP protocol will > > be long lived? > > > > Could you please define "long" and provide examples of "the > > alternatives that don't struggle too hard"? > > > > I have a feeling we may in fact live on different planets. > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > __________ NOD32 1.1606 (20060617) Information __________ > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > __________ NOD32 1.1606 (20060617) Information __________ > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > > http://www.eset.com > > -- > _____________________________________________________________ > Ronald Schmelzer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senior Analyst > ZapThink LLC > Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203 > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
