We are all for MIR, Stanimir. As Steve outlined, a process is only an IMPLEMENTATION, an internal thing for the company; it exists totally under company control. Nobody, nobody at all, can be intersected in a use of your internal process as is (except for burglars :-) ) because it does not exist for external world. Only two things are exposed: business functionality (business service, function, or feature) and related Real World Effect (RWE).
The same principle is put under concept which hides implementation from the consumers exposing only interface and business functionality/RWE. HOW this RWE is reached, nobody's business. This is where internal processes work. Even if somebody likes how you are doing things, you can sell only the results of your activities. If you sell the activities themselves, then either they are moved to the buyer (you can sell/buy a car assembling plant, i.e. a lot of processes) or you become a slave. Even in the example with the plant, the plant is the PRODUCT, i.e. RWE. I would be very interested in finding an example of one internal process sold... as a process. As of Cloud Computing, I am not a fun of this idea because it is represented recklessly. I put some comments about it in my BLOG (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/so-enterprise-blog/cloud-computing-before-jumping-into-the-cloud-think-if-you-can-get-out-27444), and can say only - beware of Cloud; a Black Whole may be behind it. - Michael ----- Original Message ---- From: Stanley Stanev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 3, 2008 12:24:57 AM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Linthicum on Metadata & SOA Michael, I agree with you. Could one process (business activity) of enterprise A be of an interest to enterprise B? I think it could happen and it happens.. So then enterprise B could ask A to expose that process as a service and use it in its own process. So that process of A becomes a service to B. How granular it could be it is a different story. That is what exactly I like about SOA. Things could grow rapidly. New companies could sprout from nowhere, pick good services and build quickly their processes. And even further...then they can sell those processes to new companies as services...the sky is the limit...and here you go a real cloud computing. P.S. "Stani" means "become" and "mir" means "peace", so you got my name :) - Stanimir Michael Poulin wrote: Stanimir and Denni, though I used to say that service and process are interchangeable, I have to admit - I did a compromise, and have to support Steve in this discussion. At the level of enterprise business model, there are only business services and, depending on their granularity, different processes can appear between services if needed. For example, if Accounting Service is split into Receivable, Payable, and General Ledger, they may interact in one process; if Receivable Payable are joined, it is another process between the join and General Ledger. That is, service goes first, process goes second. - Michael P.S. Stanimir, may I ask what 'stani' stands for? ----- Original Message ---- From: Dennis Djenfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] se> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:57:37 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Linthicum on Metadata & SOA A service could be a container for a process, or a process could use a service, or a service could be used by an application, or a service could be a container for business object, or something else. I don't see where the constraints are that says a service should have a certain scope or be modeled in a certain way. Sure, we can argue about which modeling approach is the best, but isn't it still a service oriented architecture if we are able to map our architecture to the concepts in the SOA-RM? // Dennis Djenfer
