SOA is service-focused, obviously. IMO, an IA can be SO. Service autonomy means the same regardless of the level of architecture to which SO principles are applied.
Noone on this thread is trying to equate web services (or the "mentality") with SO principles. I'm not surprised that noone talks about SOA and integration. Integration is a dirty word to most, eliciting all sorts of horrible anecdotes about integration tools run amok. This harkens back to the "SOA is not integration" discussion but IMO, if you're doing SOA you're implicitly doing integration. After one has defined an EA following SO principles and done the technical implementation, one ends up with an integrated system. -Rob --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <m3pou...@...> wrote: > > Is SOA an integration or service orientation? What does mean Service Autonomy > principle in integration, etc. ? > > I have reviewed SO principles trying make them independent from Web Service > mentality at > > http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/service_oriented/2009/02/principles_of_service_orientation_reviewed.php > > also > > http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/service_oriented/2009/03/soa_is_about_the_change_or_qcon_2009_in_london.php , > where I talk about effect I noticed at QCon-2009 in London this month: > NOBODY talked about SOA+Integration, 85% of speakers who mentioned SOA did in > the context of SOA+ChangeHandling/Adoption > > > SOA+ChangeHandling/Adoption - this is what I am talking for a year > already; this logically streams from OASIS SOA. My book-in-printing has this > subject as one of the major leitmotivs. > > - Michael > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Rob Eamon <rea...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:55:02 AM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] SO applied to different > architecture levels (was Re: Roch on SOA Failures) > > > Not my invention. It's from Anne. Perhaps she'd like to elaborate. > > My interpretation is that it is SO principles applied to integration > architecture/ activity. > > -Rob
