I agree that a more high-level and less technical approach is productive for enterprise architects (who wouldn't).  However, as with (for example) user interface design, I think it is more sensible to focus on business goals than business services.

In the end, the latter are only there to implement the former - you will get a better set of services by thinking first about the business goals they are intended to achieve.

You can find a discussion and example of this approach to SOA in my blog.
-- 

All the best
Keith

http://keith.harrison-broninski.info

Alexander Johannesen wrote:

On 7/10/06, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com> wrote:
> The concept I am trying to promote is that SOA implementation has to follow the
> principle of business centric and agile.

I'm certainly going down the same path. In my world I'm working to
build an ontology that supports all the basics of SOA (including a set
of URN-ish locators [PSI's for Topic Mappers]) where versions of a
service is defined as separate and opened and closed based on use.

(If anyone has a good ontology for what goes in a SOA or would like to
join me in creating one for sharing, pipe up! :)

Me, I'm rather agnostic to the REST vs. anything else debate as to me
SOA is *more* about realigning the semantics of IT to fit better with
the business that invented it and the needs our users got. It's about
the language we talk and how we define problems, challenges and
solutions; they must be expressed _equally_well_ in the front-field
trenches as the infrastructural sewers to the overal headquarters.

Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________


__._,_.___


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


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to