2009/5/16 Dennis Djenfer <[email protected]>: > > > > > Steve Jones wrote: > > 2009/5/6 A W <[email protected]>: > > > Service is a business function that implemented using some technical entity. > There is no doubt about that. > There are some services that are not implemented using a technology, but it > is not on the domain for SOA or > web services. it is the business > architecture domain. > > > -1 from me on this. I've been a Business SOA guy from the start and > for me the technology is ONE of the implementation choices for a > service. > > > > > It could integrated with any web services through orchestration. > > What I meant by such example is to make it clear about versioning, loosely > coupling, and interoperability which are important aspect of the > architecture, which must be implemented using some technologies. > > > -1 again. Humans must be an integral part of most "services" as > consumers at the least and often via workflow they are a key part of > the capabilities of a service. > > Technology is the AUTOMATION of a service, the question is the degree > of automation that is applied. > > > > It is just used of explanation only. It is very easy to understand with no > java or .Net background. > There are technical services that must be existed to server some business > functionality such as > authentication and authorization. > > > If SOA is just technology then it is of value only to technologist. > > > - 1. Technology brings value to anybody who chooses to use it, not just > technologist. Let me quote wikipedia: "Technology has affected society and > its surroundings in a number of ways"
At which point it ceases to become "just" a technology and starts to become the _application_ of technology. A rock is just a rock until someone realised you could hit stuff with it, then it became a tool. If SOA is simply about the internals of IT then it is simply a rock, if it enables the business to better use IT then it becomes a powerful tool. Steve > > // Dennis Djenfer > > >
