Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Nolle on RESTful Interfaces

Expand Messages
  • Michael Poulin
    Describing an architecture via views IS the common practice that is carrying a risk of equally common mistake - taking this description as definition. The
    Message 1 of 46 , Jul 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Describing an architecture via views IS the common practice that is carrying a risk of equally common mistake - taking this description as definition. The stakeholder's concerns should be addressed not via subjective views at but via professional knowledge from inside of architecture. This is possible only if an architect knows the subject, the definition of the architecture. Otherwise, any architecture will be easily discardable: "I look and does not want to see it". 
       
        
       

      Sent from my iPhone

      On 25 Jul 2013, at 08:30, "David Tildesley" <davotnz@...> wrote:

       


      --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "m3poulin" <m3poulin@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I also disagree with that "business alignment" is a SOA constraint. I even do not understand what this alignment is. I also have not heard words ""These are our SOA views" but on many occasions I did hear "using SO approach and we would like IT systems to align with this". Business Architecture is about SO and only about BA; otherwise it is either a bad architecture or not an architecture at all. Business works in SO since the time of first natural exchange of goods but architecture of business appeared as a term only recently. Business people (who know WHAT they do) always talk about SO – no business can exist without orientation on service for its consumers. OASIS SOA RAF defines SO Ecosystem instead of SOA and places it equally in business and technology.
      >
      > - Michael
      >

      Hi Michael,

      OASIS SOA RA [1] makes no bones about it: [1] Section 1, Introduction states: "The SOA ecosystem described in this document bridges the area between business and IT. It is neither wholly IT nor wholly business, but is of both worlds."

      "Aligns" for me carries the same meaning.

      [1] is an architecture description using Views - that's a pretty standard way of describing architecture. And so if the business (or business architects) were to use the OASIS RA as their guide (what else is it for?) then no doubt they would find the same viewtypes useful and perhaps add a few of their own. And if this really took root in the business, then no doubt they will start using architecture terminology such as Views.

      The main purpose of describing an architecture is to address the concerns of (many) stakeholders, with Views of various ViewTypes on the architecture exposing from multiple viewpoints with some viewpoints being of interest to certain stakeholders while of no interest to others. The business are stakeholders in the architecture therefore there will be views in the architecture description which address their concerns. The business may not be terribly interested in deployment/allocation view but would be interested in a functional view and if SO approach takes root, then they will be interested in seeing certain views that speak to this approach. IT does not have a monopoly on the concept of an architecture. In fact the architecture concepts never belonged to IT in the first place - the concepts were borrowed from the building architecture profession (e.g. "Plan View", "Gothic Style", ...). So if the business want to have a discipline called "business architecture", borrowing the same terminology, don't feel threatened - be happy. For years we have been using views in our architecture description - if the business hasn't already picked up on this terminology then something is wrong.

      Now I am sure integration suite vendors would rather steer the business towards the Open Group SOA RA because that RA completely eschews the use of views and substitutes the vendor glossy brochure favourite of "ABB" Architecture Building Blocks, dropping in the odd buzz term e.g. "SOA paradigm" (twice) while neglecting to define what it means. Very nice if you are vendor and can put product name on each block.

      [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/soa-ra/v1.0/cs01/soa-ra-v1.0-cs01.html

      Regards,
      David.

    • David Tildesley
      makes no bones about means to state clearly no matter how controversial or unpleasant it may be to the recipients ________________________________ From:
      Message 46 of 46 , Jul 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        "makes no bones about" means "to state clearly no matter how controversial or unpleasant it may be to the recipients"


        From: Michael Poulin <m3poulin@...>
        To: "service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com" <service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com" <service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 1:42 AM
        Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Nolle on RESTful Interfaces

         
        What do you mean by "[1] makes no bones about it"? It is the first standard for SOA that places it into Business. 

        "Aligns" for me assumes that something may be not aligned. But in a Business Service an IT part cannot be  "not aligned" and then aligned - the Business Service will not exist in such case. 
        Sent from my iPhone

        On 25 Jul 2013, at 08:30, "David Tildesley" <davotnz@...> wrote:

         

        --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "m3poulin" <m3poulin@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I also disagree with that "business alignment" is a SOA constraint. I even do not understand what this alignment is. I also have not heard words ""These are our SOA views" but on many occasions I did hear "using SO approach and we would like IT systems to align with this". Business Architecture is about SO and only about BA; otherwise it is either a bad architecture or not an architecture at all. Business works in SO since the time of first natural exchange of goods but architecture of business appeared as a term only recently. Business people (who know WHAT they do) always talk about SO – no business can exist without orientation on service for its consumers. OASIS SOA RAF defines SO Ecosystem instead of SOA and places it equally in business and technology.
        >
        > - Michael
        >

        Hi Michael,

        OASIS SOA RA [1] makes no bones about it: [1] Section 1, Introduction states: "The SOA ecosystem described in this document bridges the area between business and IT. It is neither wholly IT nor wholly business, but is of both worlds."

        "Aligns" for me carries the same meaning.

        [1] is an architecture description using Views - that's a pretty standard way of describing architecture. And so if the business (or business architects) were to use the OASIS RA as their guide (what else is it for?) then no doubt they would find the same viewtypes useful and perhaps add a few of their own. And if this really took root in the business, then no doubt they will start using architecture terminology such as Views.

        The main purpose of describing an architecture is to address the concerns of (many) stakeholders, with Views of various ViewTypes on the architecture exposing from multiple viewpoints with some viewpoints being of interest to certain stakeholders while of no interest to others. The business are stakeholders in the architecture therefore there will be views in the architecture description which address their concerns. The business may not be terribly interested in deployment/allocation view but would be interested in a functional view and if SO approach takes root, then they will be interested in seeing certain views that speak to this approach. IT does not have a monopoly on the concept of an architecture. In fact the architecture concepts never belonged to IT in the first place - the concepts were borrowed from the building architecture profession (e.g. "Plan View", "Gothic Style", ...). So if the business want to have a discipline called "business architecture", borrowing the same terminology, don't feel threatened - be happy. For years we have been using views in our architecture description - if the business hasn't already picked up on this terminology then something is wrong.

        Now I am sure integration suite vendors would rather steer the business towards the Open Group SOA RA because that RA completely eschews the use of views and substitutes the vendor glossy brochure favourite of "ABB" Architecture Building Blocks, dropping in the odd buzz term e.g. "SOA paradigm" (twice) while neglecting to define what it means. Very nice if you are vendor and can put product name on each block.

        [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/soa-ra/v1.0/cs01/soa-ra-v1.0-cs01.html

        Regards,
        David.



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.