Michael/Steve, If the definition of SOA is so simple and obvious, why is it that we get into heated permathreads whenever someone says something like "SOA = integration"?
What are people talking about when they refer to "their SOA"? What's a SOA? SOA is something you do, not something you build. But most of the world doesn't understand that. Anne On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Michael Poulin <[email protected]> wrote: > +100 to Steve, no comments > > Accidentally, I have found that Casewise Modelling suite refers in its v. > 2008 to the OASIS SOA RM directly and that IDS Scheer's Asis suite has > implemented Service Description/Contract model described in SOA RA draft. > And you can find by yourself how many hundreds of companies use those > toolsets. > > - Michael > > > ________________________________ > From: Steve Jones <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:05:40 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] I say SOA was never born - > How about now? Are WE ready? > > 2009/1/10 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@gmail. com>: >> 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 <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 >>>> >>> >> > >
