Could you, please, elaborate a little bit more on what would you call real architecture with regard to SOA?
Cheers,
- Michael
Steve Ross-Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does the Zachman framework help as a way of understanding the
necessary abstractions that are needed to tie requirements
and business analysis to an specific architecture?
We have found that we can abstract out the information models using
UML and we have found that we can define the context in
which the information is used by defining the dynamic model using WS-
CDL. From this we can generate both specific XML schema
representations of information models and their necessary state
machines by auto-generating the correct UML artifacts and thence
onto code generation.
This approach, which is keeping with the Zachman framework, appears
to work quite well as we can preserve the abstractions and use
transformation functions to move between the different levels.
For my own part I do not think that there is much A in SOA. It is
more SOD (Service Oriented Design). It is a way of aggregating functions
in a loose coupled way as services that are directly relevant to
business needs. This contrasts with OOD (Object Oriented Design) which
was more technically focussed (for IT) than for business.
I think this is why various efforts have been and are being made to
address the lack of fundamental architecture in SOA. For example the
Architecture Summit in London, England, in December 2005 that was
attended by luminaries such as Rod Johnson, John Davies, Mathew
Rawlings, Alexis Richardson to name but a few - many others where
there too. They looked at this very issue and looked into what we really
mean by architecture and the Zachman framework loomed large (along
with others).
Cheers
Steve T
On 6 Nov 2006, at 11:04, shashank d. jha wrote:
>> 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!
>>
>
> Interesting observation.
>
>>
> (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
>
> My issue is not with abstraction. but with proper abstraction.
>
> Look at the paper again, there is no architecture diagram for
> reference model? But their is a diagram for how SOA RM relates to
> other work?? Wherein in SOA implementation (not spec nor RM) seems to
> be the biggest block.
>
> Service oriented Architecture implementation is the biggest block??
>
> Reference model just guides or just a small part of Architecture
> work??
>
> How can you define the artifacts of the systems without having
> identified artifacts and their relations with each other?
>
> Though the relation with Requirement, motivation and Goals has been
> shown but no description for the same is mentioned in the paper?
>
> regards,
> shashank
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. __._,_.___
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
__,_._,___
