I believe many parts of the standard were under long and serious discussions and the search for compromises in the Committee, that is why they have such abstract definitions, especially the ones, mentioned by Shashank.
I do not see a lack but too much compromises between an intention to make the SAO business-oriented architecture and an intention of IT vendors to continue making money on application tools, aka application-oriented approach.
According to Shashank, "SOA is an architectural approach that seeks to align business processes with service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications that implement them." To me, it is exactly opposite! (Now we have an interesting precedent caused by the standard.) At last, the "service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications" have to be aligned with the business process. That is, IT's got critical mass in technology and now IT has to partner with the business minding business functions, not IT own technology-centric interests. As you know, 'who is paying money those order the music'
I do have found relatively clear definitions of " visibility, awareness, real-world effect, willingness, reachability", "those in needs" and "those with capabilities" in the standards. Probably, it worth reading it a few times because, as I said, it is an attempt to position technical architecture in the real business world.
I do not see a lack but too much compromises between an intention to make the SAO business-oriented architecture and an intention of IT vendors to continue making money on application tools, aka application-oriented approach.
According to Shashank, "SOA is an architectural approach that seeks to align business processes with service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications that implement them." To me, it is exactly opposite! (Now we have an interesting precedent caused by the standard.) At last, the "service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications" have to be aligned with the business process. That is, IT's got critical mass in technology and now IT has to partner with the business minding business functions, not IT own technology-centric interests. As you know, 'who is paying money those order the music'
I do have found relatively clear definitions of " visibility, awareness, real-world effect, willingness, reachability", "those in needs" and "those with capabilities" in the standards. Probably, it worth reading it a few times because, as I said, it is an attempt to position technical architecture in the real business world.
- Michael Poulin
"shashank d. jha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi all,
I was going through the reference model os soa by OASIS and I found it lacking seriously in most of the abstractions it talks about
Lets start with soa definition itself-
SOA- (SOA) is a paradigm for organizing and utilizing distributed capabilities that may be under the control of different ownership domains.
Till now my general understanding of soa was
SOA is an architectural approach that seeks to align business processes with service protocols and the underlying software components and legacy applications that implement them.
similarly abstraction of vocabulary execution context, visibility, real-world effect, interaction all seems to be too primitive, lacking in general high level abstraction.
At one point document says
A service is a mechanism to enable access to one or more capabilities?
Is service a mechanism or end?
In the topic "Dynamics of service" it has used so many closely related and confusing terms like visibility, awareness, real-world effect, willingness, reachability etc.?
What is the general opinion of people here?
---------------
regards,
shashank
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. __._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer security software | Computer software program |
| Computer fax software | Computer virus software |
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
