Talk:Service-oriented analysis and design
Appearance
The article appears focused on (a) describing IBM as the owner of this process, and (b) showcasing Mr. Erl. There have been dozens of books on Service Oriented design. While I cannot state which came first, at present, it is clear that any representation of Mr. Erl being "first" is not useful to the discussion of the process itself. --Nickmalik 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.167.91 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge from Service-oriented modeling
There is a newer article that duplicates a lot of this material with a different slant. Putting them into one would be a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The service-oriented modeling framework that is presented in this article is unique SOA modeling language and a framework for modeling services that are not only Web services – it is a holistic approach to modeling software. I thus suggest not merging it with the service-oriented analysis and design article which accentuate Web services and does not present a modeling language – it is merely a process.
Eric Douglas, New York.
- I respectfully disagree with Mr. Douglas. I find it irritating when a topic is broken up into a large number of related articles where each article ends up repeating large chunks of the introduction content from the other articles due to the interrelatedness of the material. Sometimes, this is necessary, but if the material from the Service Oriented Modeling article can be integrated into this one in a smooth manner, I'm all for it. Perhaps, to respond to Mr. Douglas' concerns, we should remove some of the web service slant from this article, and thus allow the topic of service oriented analysis and design to stand seperate from the technology used to implement the service. Would that suffice? --Nickmalik (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)