On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/11 Anne Thomas Manes <[email protected]>: > >> 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"? > > Because that is the detail, which is where we are saying the issue is > but also because its part of the subversion that some analysts and > most vendors have done deliberately. SOA = Technology.
But that's just my point: The industry has not agreed on the meaning of SOA. >> >> What are people talking about when they refer to "their SOA"? > > Their Service Oriented Architecture? Well most of the time its the > pictures and architectural artefacts that define how their IT is going > to be delivered, sometimes its the physical realisation of that > architecture and sometimes its just because they've bought a product > with an SOA sticker. When people talk about SOA as a thing, they are talking about their ESB. They might also include the applications that they've deployed that communicate using the ESB. They are not talking about pictures and architectural artifacts. > >> What's a >> SOA? SOA is something you do, not something you build. But most of the >> world doesn't understand that. > > An SOA is something you _realise_ (i.e. make real) so it can have a > physical manifestation, so I would say that you can "build" a SOA in > the same way as you can build a Cathedral based on Gothic Oriented > Architecture. I disagree. SOA is something you do. It's not something you build or buy. SOA is the architectural principles that you apply when you design a system. It seems that our definitions are further apart than I thought. > > Or did you mean "buy"? > > Steve > >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
