Dear Jerry,
indeed it is awhile ago I passed Political Economy and Philosophy tests doing
my Ph.D. as well as the tests on Sun's Architect certification; thank you for
refreshing my memory.
Nevertheless, it is hard to me to find where my feet are. However, I know,
more or less, what is in my pocket and I try to fill it faster and in more
reliable way.
I guess many developers do not recognize that the majority of their work
worth not more than the amount of money their employers gain from the results
of the work. This comes with experience (even in post industrial age). So, DB,
App. Servers and related Warehouse and multi-tier architectural solutions are
good only while they result in more profit or less investments. This is the
primary goal of Enterprise Architecture (at least, in 5 international
financial institutions I worked for).
SOA-RM standard simply says the same as I said above - horizontal
conceptualization went too far from the actual business needs and it is time
to return EA onto the business alignment rails. It is appeared that to have
such alignment the business has to recall and re-use its vertical
conceptualization.
Is an EA wider than SOA? I would say YES. Does EA make sense w/o SOA? I would
say that in many cases NO (though in some - YES). SOA cannot be "without EA"
because SOA is the form of the part of EA which serves business (another part
of EA serves EA itself enabling the first part to serve the business). That
is, "EA entails a higher level abstraction than SOA" does not make sense to
me. Sorry.
- Michael
Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael,
Before DBMS in 1960s-70s, Enterprise information
systems was in middle age. As we can buy DBMS in the
market we entered into industrial age (large amount
labors massed around machines to produce standardized
products - OS, DBMS, network OS etc). This is the
result of horrizontal separation of concerns. From
architecture perspective, we have client server, three
tier to multi-tier etc.
Currently we are in the early stage of transformation
from industrial age to post industrial age as we begin
to reconceptualize the world. One of the new
concetuplization is separation of concerns that is
vertical rather than horrizontal. This is a hard
transition simply because most of us have both feet
still in the world of industrial age.
The most important change today is in the way we try
to understand the world, and in our conception of
this nature. If our view of the world is out of date,
our behavior they drive will be out of date.
Best
Jerry
--- Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, well, this starts to look like a driver
> without car...
> - Michael
>
> Jerry Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robin
>
> Agree with what you said.
>
> EA is the thing that bridges business strategy
> (present and future states and steps from here to
> there) to its implementation. It's enterprise
> wide in
> scope.
>
> SOA is in the scope of lines of business and
> concerns
> business agility - one set of sub architectures
> (we
> call it sub because it is the architecture of
> lines of
> business) among many for EA.
>
> EA entails a higher level abstraction than SOA and
> yields the understanding of SOA.
>
> Jerry
>
> --- Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well well, I think that SOA without EA is like
> > driving a car without a
> > clear destination. You may enjoy the ride of
> course
> > and I bet lots of
> > people on this list do ;-)
> > I think EA should indicate the target
> architecture
> > supporting the
> > business strategy and vision. SOA is then a mean
> to
> > reach this target
> > enterprise architecture and not a goal on its
> own.
> > Robin
> >
> > --- In
> > [email protected],
> > Michael Poulin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am afraid that SO{alphabet}A will
> destroy
> > the concept and
> > allow a "flavor" of SOA for compromising the SOA
> > principles on the
> > ground that in a SOxyzA they are not needed.
> > >
> > > I am working primarily with financial
> Web
> > sites and, in
> > particular, with Web interfaces for internal and
> > external users.
> > According to Adrian's logic, I have to say that
> I
> > deal with SOBIA
> > where BI stands for Business Interface.
> > >
> > > However, on the basis of `plain' SOA, I
> was
> > able to explain
> > my business clients that the Web site represents
> an
> > aggregation of
> > business services that join its business
> interfaces
> > for business
> > collaborative tasks and that Web page flow
> simply
> > reflects the flow
> > of business units of work mixed with the User
> > Experience aspects, and
> > that an interaction between Web sites is nothing
> > more than a business
> > process. This allowed me to re-model the Web
> > interface design as a
> > design of collaboration of business interfaces
> > sitting on the top of
> > business services currently represented by web
> > applications (that will
> > be replaces by SOA services in close future).
> As a
> > result, my
> > business clients started to address business
> > requirements as
> > interface (vs. service) related which
> simplified
> > our life
> > significantly. Here is no Enterprise things at
> all.
> > >
> > > So, I see that SOA works if you start
> with
> > the business model
> > and stop pushing business into IT (enterprise or
> > application) world.
> > Things like "SOEA is more than EA or SOA" scary
> me a
> > lot.
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "grigoriu.adrian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > SOA alone is misleading if not taken in
> the
> > context or scope of the
> > > development. After all, it can be applied to
> any
> > architecture (an
> > > application architecture for instance) and
> not
> > necessarily to an
> > > Enterprise Architecture (EA).
> > > A note of caution: Enterprise wide IT
> > architecture is often called
> > > Enterprise Architecture.
> > >
> > > I would like to call it SOEA (Service
> Oriented
> > Enterprise
> > > Architecture), a target EA with an SO style
> of
> > architecture.
> > >
> > > For most business people, SOA looks like yet
> > another over hyped
> > > technology. SOA may have its roots in a long
> > history of distributed
> > > components architecture, is usually
> associated
> > to Web Services
> > > technologies and is often proposed by IT.
> > > But in an Enterprise, services may not
> > necessarily be based on IT. In
> > > fact services can be performed by human
> beings
> > and/or other non-IT
> > > technologies. A service, as in every day
> life,
> > is an activity
> > > executed by people and/or technology
> returning
> > value to its consumer,
> > > at a price.
> > >
> > > But at the soul of SOEA, is the business
> value
> > for the Enterprise.
> > > SOEA is an Enterprise wide Business Process
> > Re-architecting effort
> > > and more, it will require an aligned
> governance
> > and organization.
> > >
> > > SOEA is more than EA or SOA.
> > > EA development is the process of achieving
> > technology and
> > > organization alignment to business
> processes,
> > strategy and objectives.
> > > SOA, as a style of business architecture,
> is
> > adding value by
> > > enabling business service re-use, quality of
> > service & internal usage
> > > monitoring enabling payback mechanisms and
> > service contracts. More
> > > there are other benefits from enabling
> services
> > provided over the
> > > Web, using Web Services technologies and
> from
> > making possible on-
> > > demand outsourcing as SaaS.
> > > SOEA must have support from top management
> and
> > involve business since
> > > it requires process re-engineering,
> technology
> > alignment and firm re-
> > > organization, in other words SOEA transforms
> the
> > whole Enterprise.
> > > SOEA must be the focus of your business
> strategy
> > until your Service
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
