--- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still disagree with: > > "SOA is not a discrete level of architecture. It is not itself an > architecture at all."
I thought you earlier stated that SOA is not an architecture? Ah, I think I see now. You weren't arguing that SOA isn't an architecture, but that merely a collection of services is not an architecture. > I do not see anything wrong in "One applies SO principles, the SO > style, to business architecture, or EA or any other discrete > architecture." As a result we have business service-oriented > architecture which may be included into Enterprise service-oriented > architecture together with IT/Technology service-oriented > architecture ( interesting what TOGAF 9.0 is going to say about > this! SO far, I am in the spirit of TOGAF 8.1 - EA = BA + IT/TA ) > > How we can agree on the following statement: > "(a) service-oriented architecture is (any) architecture (business, > enterprise, etc., comprising services--which is) essentially a > collection of services" > > when architecture becomes essentially equal to a collection? Where > is all relationship stuff? Can we say that a car is "essentially a > collection of" wheels and engine? Yes--it'd be a "Wheel-oriented architecture." Just joking. :-) Good point though. A tweak might be: "(a) service-oriented architecture is (any) architecture (business, enterprise, etc., comprising services, describing the relationships between them." Thoughts? -Rob
