I agree that it would be better if we had different terms for SO at different levels. That's where a lot of the confusion is introduced. I think I posted something along these lines a while back--SO applied to BA, EA, AA, etc. all want to use the term SOA.
B-SOA, T-SOA, SODA, and others have been proposed by various folks but obviously none have caught on. Another scheme might be SO-BA, SO- EA, SO-AA, SO-InfrA, but I doubt that will grab hold. The thing I'm currently having issues with is the view that SOA *must* be at the BA/EA level and that SO at any other level is a waste of time. The notion that SOA "requires" a complete business/IT structure overhaul is as risky as equating SOA with technology. -Rob --- In [email protected], "JP Morgenthal" <jpmorgent...@...> wrote: > > > > > IMO, that's not "subversion." It's just another level at which SO > > principles can be applied. Ideal? Depends on one's goals. > > > > There are a couple of approaches to resolving the "issue." > > Continue to debate to arrive at a single detail definition. Or > > accept that many definitions exist and that all are okay, with > > pros and cons at each level. > > > > -Rob > > Rob, > > If granularity is important in the case of SO(A), then it should be > equally important in the definition of SO(A). If there's an aspect > of SO that deals specifically with technology, then it should be > named accordingly. I warmed to the term SODA, because it > said "applying SOA to application design", unfortunately, people > overloaded this term and I've seen the 'D' be used for design and > development, which ended up making the term useless once again. > But, it was on the right track there for a moment. > > I covered this in my blog posting here: > http://www.avorcor.com/morgenthal/index.php?entry=entry060311-084440 > > If you look at the comments someone raised the variance on the use > of the 'D' word. > > JP
