On 11/6/06, 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?
Offcourse not. Its architecture neutral.
> 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.
Still, in this regard, MDA provides better abstraction in terms of PIM
model and then generating code for finally executing model. Or BPMN
and its translation to BPMN4WS.provides better abstract,
> 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.
This is precisely my point, the definition of SOA by OASIS is "(SOA)
is a paradigm for organizing and utilizing distributed capabilities
that may be under the control of different ownership domains."
There is no "business" mentioned there?
> 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).
Even in the RM model paper published by OASIS there is a architecture
diagram showing how RM of SOA relates with its environment and other
things, but their is no architecture diagram for SOA itself? and paper
goes on defining terms like visibility, reachability etc. forgetting
that first it needs to define its context, business or IT? The
semantics of terms will vary.
regards,
shashank
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/
