Anne, I am with Steve in this case. "service oriented architecture" means only one thing - architecture oriented on services. Different interpretations come from different people agendas; since 'oriented' and 'architecture' is more or less defined words, 'service' is point of an attack.
Different opinions about SOA are just a result of different 'luggage' we collected and carry for these years that we tried to put behind this word. That is, the semantic of 'service' gets compromised (in security language). The question to me is: what would be the successful way - create new name/abbreviation for B-to-T SOA or just say 'Hey, guys, read it literally, this is simple' ? Service Orientation is oriented on service; service is the entity, which serves. The only questions to answer are (in this order): serves WHO/WHAT and WHY; then, HOW. To answer WHO/WHAT/WHY we, in every individual case, have to 1) define objectives and goals of each initiative, 2) identify future execution context (EC), 3) recognize risks/appropriateness of WHO/WHAT/WHY against EC and against objectives. If we do this first, not many people will name an integration between two applications a service-oriented solution (Why? - Because those applications perfectly existed w/o each other until external need/consumer wanted this integration but, in this case, there should be 3 participants in the solution, not 2, and we should address how integrated apps serve that consumer) - Michael P.S. I know, Anne, that you know all this but do not say... ________________________________ From: Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:00:19 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] I say SOA was never born - How about now? Are WE ready? Steve, Although "service oriented architecture" broadly conveys it's meaning, it's precise meaning is open to wide interpretation. 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. Anne On 1/10/09, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/1/10 Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com>: >> 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 <nick.g...@gmail. com> >> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com >> 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 >> >
