No, not really. I am trying to say that it is enough SOA concept 
interpretations from OASIS, OMG, W3C, etc. We do not need new SOA concept for 
Telecom, Healthcare, and so on. 

At the same time, there may be implementation specifics in the domains, and 
quite significant. I think, it should not be a Telecom SOA but rather a Telecom 
specific SOA adoption or implementation framework. This is why I propose the 
name DOSOM ( for DOmain Service-Oriented Model/Methodic/ Method ) that promotes 
SO Principles in the specific (Telecom) domain modeling and implementation.

- Michael



________________________________
From: htshozawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:48:17 PM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Stuart and Richard about SOA for 
Telecom


Are you implicitly trying to tell us that Domain Oriented 
Model/Methodic/ Method is DOOM?

H.Ozawa

--- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael 
Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote:
>
> I propose to use following acronym for those who want to build 
domain specific SOA implementation standards:
> DOSOM ・standing for Domain Service-Oriented Model/Methodic/ Method 
for ... Telecom,  Kindergarten or Ice-cream Kiosks
> 
> Other variations are:
> ・SOFDOM ・standing for Service Orientation For Domain 
> ・SOFOD ・standing for Service Orientation For Domain 
> ・(SODOM) :-)
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .>
> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:42:06 AM
> Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Stuart and Richard about 
SOA for Telecom
> 
> 
> I have noticed an announcement from OASIS and publication in SOA 
Magazine about initiative  in creation of SOA for Telecom: 
http://www.soamag. com/I23/1108- 3.asp 
> 
> If people are going mad around me, the instinct of self-defense 
tells me that I better to start a SOA for 
> Kindergarten or SOA for Ice-cream Kiosks. How about you? 
> 
> - Michael
>

 


      

Reply via email to