2009/1/10 Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]>: > Steve, > > Although "service oriented architecture" broadly conveys it's meaning, > it's precise meaning is open to wide interpretation.
Agreed, but pretty much any three words are. "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" are three cracking words. Pop outside to the suburbs of Paris and you will get a very different view on their precise meaning than that you'd get in the centre of Paris. "In God we Trust" is four words but I still bet that you'd get a huge range of opinions (including within the founding fathers) on what it means. Hell over 20% of American's don't think that the phrase "George W Bush" matches to catastrophic failure and economists appear to struggle over what really constitutes a "recession". One of the biggest problems with SOA has been that vendors and (some) analysts appear to have a vested interest in muddying the waters to help them sell products or research. This was why a while ago I felt like giving up on SOA and just using BSA, but now I've decided bollocks to that its time to fight that rubbish and make SOA clear and simple. You start with the services If you don't have services as the primary modelling part of your architecture then it isn't SOA If you can't show me the service architecture PICTURE and have someone (not yourself) clearly identify the services in the picture then it isn't SOA Technology is the execution context and (from a Zachman/TOGAF perspective) is at the Logical and Physical layers. > My guess is that > your definition is quite different from Sandy Carter's definition, as > well as Rob's. Our definitions might be closer in alignment, but they > are still different.if you ask 5 architects to define SOA, you'll get > at least 6 answers. Hence the word has up meaning. 'up meaning'? Yes we might disagree about the next bit of the definition, but I'd say that most people would agree that it means that a) Services are the important thing b) Its about the architectural stage of the programme, the big picture stuff that kicks it off and sets it all up In three words that is about as much as you are ever going to get on a concept. "Shock and Awe" just looked like blowing the crap out of the country to me, but apparently it was a detailed military strategy, what myself and the US army could both agree on however is that its intent was to scare the shit out of people and then make them feel they had no hope. If you ask Duane, Michael and I you'd have a shot at getting the SOA RM as our definition and I personally think that there are an awful lot of people out there who moan about the SOA RM but who have singularly failed to come up with anything better. Sorry its 2am here and I'm writing a bid document so I'm a bit grumpy, this is my letting off steam before getting back in. Steve > > Anne > > On 1/10/09, Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/1/10 Michael Poulin <[email protected]>: >>> SOA - service-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't >>> tell >>> us anything" >>> OOD - object-oriented design - "is a bad word because it doesn't tell us >>> anything" >>> DDD - domain-driven design - "is a bad word because it doesn't tell us >>> anything" >>> WOA -web-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't tell >>> us >>> anything" >>> MDA - model-driven architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't tell >>> us >>> anything" >>> POA - process-oriented architecture - "is a bad word because it doesn't >>> tell >>> us anything" >>> ... >>> >>> So, all these "D" and "A" are bad words. >>> >>> Now, what are the good words? >> >> Chocolate and rambunctious are wonderful words. >> >> The problem is however that in reality very little is ever going to be >> conveyed in three words with oriented in the middle >> >> "Stimulus oriented economics" >> >> However what SOA/WOA/XOA do say is two things >> >> What is the most important thing (Services in the case of SOA) and >> what domain is it applied within (Architecture). Now that to me has >> always been enough for me to understand broadly what it is about. >> >> Steve >> >>> >>> - Michael >>> P.S. In one of famous Russian sarcastic romans, a femail-character used >>> only >>> 30 words to express all emotions and desires, and everything else. I can >>> help to translate this example into English for our use. >> >> And at the other end of the scale Shakespear invented hundreds if not >> thousands of words to convey what he wanted. >> >> English is a wonderfully creative language but its not meant to be >> specific, its meant to be abused which is why we have problems with >> clarity in a language that has no real rules. >> >> Steve >> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Nick Gall <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:06:56 AM >>> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] I say SOA was never born - >>> How about now? Are WE ready? >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> JP said: "I say SOA was never born" >>> >>> I like this line of JP's better: >>> "SOA is a bad word because it doesn't tell us anything." >>> -- Nick >>> >> >
