--- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > > 2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > > Steve said: > > > >> To take the cathedral argument, I do the architecture in a Gothic > >> style, the designer then takes this and turns it into blueprints and > >> the implementor then builds it. At the end of the process I can point > >> at the cathedral and say "that implements my principles and > >> guidelines". > > > > Yes -- but you wouldn't call the cathedral "a Gothic". > > But I'd consider it an implementation of a Gothic Oriented > Architecture and its principles and practice to be Gothic Oriented.
Would this include Neo-Gothic cathedrals and other such large ecclesiastical structures in the same style (my old school chapel springs to mind :) Gervas > What I mean is that I can tell the difference between a realised POA > and a realised SOA. > > Steve > > > > > > Anne > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Steve Jones <jones.ste...@...> wrote: > >> 2009/1/12 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Steve Jones <jones.ste...@...> > >>> wrote: > >>>> 2009/1/11 Anne Thomas Manes <atma...@...>: > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> Well some of us have, you do have to wonder why others like to have > >> their own personal definitions. I look at SOA like GSM v CDMA, the > >> whole world could have had a standard but some people just have to go > >> their own way no matter how silly that is. > >> > >> I agree we don't have a definition _in detail_ but we can all agree on > >> the starter for ten (its about Services & Architecture). We live in > >> an industry that still can't agree what OO is about and where people > >> argue about REST (can browsers be truly REST if they don't have > >> PUT/DELETE) when there is a single version of the truth (the paper). > >> It takes a huge amount to get everyone to agree to a standard but > >> pretty much only technical standards can be agreed universally and > >> then only when there is a clear market driver to collaborate > >> (802.11x). > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> Might be the people you talk to but the ones I work with have an ESB > >> "in" their SOA as part of the implementation but they have a clear set > >> of "services" that interact through that ESB and its the services that > >> are important. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> I think we agree, I think that you do SOA, you then do SOD (Service > >> Oriented Delivery) which eventually ends up in SOM (Service Oriented > >> Management). You don't directly build the SOA you need to do SOD to > >> make sure that the SOA is realised as services (rather than being > >> "simply" governed as services) but I'd argue that people can then > >> point to the actual implementation and map directly back from the > >> physical implementation to the conceptual services within the > >> architecture. > >> > >> To take the cathedral argument, I do the architecture in a Gothic > >> style, the designer then takes this and turns it into blueprints and > >> the implementor then builds it. At the end of the process I can point > >> at the cathedral and say "that implements my principles and > >> guidelines". > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Or did you mean "buy"? > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Anne > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> > >>>>> 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 <jones.ste...@...> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >
