the evolution of software engineering is ever increase of levels of abstraction from machine code to assembly to functional orientation to OO to SO to BP orientation. Each level of abstraction corresponds to a version of software technology correlated to a suite of software platforms.
If we call object technology, then we should also call Service technology. When we apply technology to solve real world problems, we define business capabilities and enable them with IT capabilities, called infrastrucure capabilities. The higher level abstraction the more infrastracture capabilities. SOA compliance means software platforms of Service technology meet the standards of SOA infrastructure capabilities which we have talked a lot before. Jerry Zhu > On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Eric Newcomer wrote: > > > We at IONA would not claim "SOA compliance" since > such a thing doesn't exist and probably can't or at > least shouldn't. > > > SOA is a style of design, or an approach to IT. > It's not something > with which any particular product can be compliant > since any number of technologies can be (and have > been) successfully used to > imlpement an SOA. That means it's how you use the > product, not the product or technology itself, > that needs to be SOA compliant. > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:11:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > SOA-compliant > > > > And here in lies the problem.... > > > > I've done this on several occasions with product > teams who make the > > valid point > > > > "Yes we know that it isn't, but the analysts are > saying things must > > be SOA and customers are looking for SOA, so we > say we have SOA and > > people buy it" > > > > No-one ever advertises "Pretty much like our old > product, we've > > just put three more blades on it to see if you > will buy the same > > stuff again" or "gets clothes as white as everyone > elses product" > > and certainly not "Its a creme for your face, it > might help it > > might not, we just use phrases like fructose and > aqua so you won't > > realise its just sugar and water". > > > > That said I'd argue that it should be possible to > have a standard > > of both architectureal and technical compliance to > SOA principles, > > rather than the current raft which is just > right-click expose web > > service on the existing code base. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > On 27/06/07, JP Morgenthal <morgenthaljp@ > avorcor.com> wrote: > > Now that we're all in agreement, who will carry > the message back to > > the pathetic marketing staffs within these > vendors? > > > > > > :-) > > ____________ _________ _________ ____ > > JP Morgenthal > > President & CEO > > Avorcor, Inc. > > 46440 Benedict Drive > > Suite 103 > > Sterling, VA 20164 > > (703) 649-0829 x 101: Office > > (703) 554-5301 : Cell > > morgenthaljp@ avorcor.com > > ____________ _________ _________ ____ > > > > Confidential: The information in this e-mail > message (including any > > attachments) is intended only for the use of the > recipient(s) named > > above and as such is privileged and confidential. > If you are not an > > intended recipient of this message or an agent > responsible for > > delivering it to the intended recipient(s) , be > hereby notified > > that you have received this message in error. Any > review, > > dissemination, distribution, printing or copying > of this message is > > strictly prohibited. If you believe you have > received this message > > in error, please notify the sender immediately by > return e-mail and > > delete this message from your system(s). > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Mark D. Carlson > wrote: > > > >> > >> For this term to have meaning one would have to > ask "Compliant > >> according to what defined standard or > specification? ". If I > >> assert that a Web Service is compliant with WS-I > Basic Profile > >> 1.0, that assertion can be tested either manually > by reviewing its > >> characteristics against the published rules or in > an automated > >> fashion using one or more tools. In short, my > compliance claim > >> could be verified. > >> > >> > >> This vendor's claim of "SOA compliance" can > neither be proved nor > >> disproved in absence of some finite set of > compliance tests or at > >> least a widely agreed upon specific definition. > Their claim is > >> like claiming "object orientation compliant" or > "distributed > >> computing compliant" or "client server > compliant". It is a > >> marketing construct and useless for any real > evaluation of their > >> product. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> From: service-orientated- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:service-orientated-architecture@ > yahoogroups.com] On > >> Behalf Of Teresa Jones > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:30 AM > >> To: service-orientated-architecture@ > yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] > SOA-compliant > >> > >> > >> I'm currently looking at a CRM product that the > vendor claims is > >> 'SOA-compliant' yet it is also claimed to be an > n-tier > >> architecture. A > >> quick search on the concept of SOA-compliance > brought up this > >> article:- > >> http://blogs.ittoolbox. > com/eai/engineering/archives/my-soa- > >> compliant -toaster-and-cell- phone-7362 > >> which was quite fun! > >> I suspect that the CRM vendor concerned actually > means that you can > >> integrate with it using web services.... > >> Question for the group - can an application be > regarded as > >> SOA-compliant? Or is that rather a meaningless > phrase? > >> thanks > >> Teresa > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you > sell. > > > > > >
