Stefan Tilkov came up with B-SOA. I prefer BSA. Steve
2008/11/17 Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Keep in mind that Steve's preferred acronym can lead to a focus on > the wrong thing. IMO, B-SOA puts the focus back on SOA, which isn't a > distinct level of architecture. It is a style. The architecture of > importance here is the business architecture--which may or may not be > SO. Thus, "SOBA" (service-oriented business architecture) may be a > (marginally?) better acronym that puts the focus on BA instead of > SOA. Steve doesn't like the "SOBA" acronym, preferring B-SOA. > > Also, T-SOA essentially refers to any level of architecture that > isn't BA. That would include enterprise architecture, integration > architecture, application architecture, etc. (Although I know the > popular view of SOA is that it is enterprise architecture.) > > So my response to your question is--no, simply having a business-case > for T-SOA does not make the T-SOA a B-SOA. B-SOA (or SOBA if one > prefers) is architecture at the business level. > > -Rob > > --- In [email protected], Ashley at > > Metamaxim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm a bit confused too. >> >> Is it possible to imagine a T-SOA project that has a sound >> (realizable) business case? >> >> Or is any SOA project with a sound business case necessarily B-SOA? >> >> Rgds >> Ashley >> > >
