Talk:Service-oriented modeling

Conflict of Interest

This article appears to have been written largely as a plug for books written by the article's only editor. If the article has any validity please add other sources. --Michig 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More material has been added that appears to come from the same source. Unless the COI and notability issues can be resolved, I think this article should either be deleted or merged with similar articles from other sources. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the space of SOA Modeling is a new one and there are NOT enough resources or material in the industry on this topic. Service-Oriented Modeling suggests a universal modeling strategy and it's unlike any other modeling method in the industry. Indeed, is seems like two or more persons contributed to this article, and there is NO reason to eliminate this page! The suggestion will be to leave this article in place until other contributors will add value to this topic, which needs improvements and more brain power to evolve into a powerful SOA discipline.

Anita Rogel, MSVA.

It looks like this article has been cleaned and provides valuable source for many readers. Also, multiple contributors agree that the article is balanced and free of conflict of interest. Because of its contribution to many reader, I would suggest to remove the "Conflict of Interest" tag. Eric Soloveitzik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Soloveitzik (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic and holistic huh?

Does the person who attached these labels to the method (possibly Mr Bell himself) understand what these words actually mean? Most modelling languages are reductionist, so if Mr Bell has managed to invent a modelling language that is non-reductionist, this would be a most notable achievement. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent Opportunity

This would be an excellent opportunity to understand our software world by looking at it from a different perspective. It is unlike any other exising modeling concept. It sounds like a fresh idea, as presented in this article, can help us finally model our heterogeneous software environment without actually delving too much into the underline language platforms and other constraints. Is it possible? Can it be done? Anita Rogel, MSVA

Wikipedia:No original research --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the references that Anita Rogel has added to this article, which make clear that Michael Bell's approach, while potentially interesting, is by no means the only approach with this name. Furthermore, Bell's approach has not yet been subject to critical review - the only source I am aware of at present is his own book, and a couple of fairly brief and inconclusive mentions in blogs (including my own). Therefore I do not regard Bell's approach as sufficiently notable (yet) to warrant an article in its own right. And despite Anita's plea, I do not think Wikipedia is the place to carry out this analysis and review (hence my previous note about Original Research) - Wikipedia should be used to summarize information after it is available in reputable sources elsewhere. --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Richard and Anita—the root problem is that currently there is no driving SOA modeling practice, but as we find out, there are visionaries that every day add a piece to the puzzle, until things get institutionalized. And thus, I strongly believe that Wikipedia is a very distinctive platform that is balance and fair and it should continue to expose the various perspectives of our technological landscapes. This includes contributors that are passionate about their inventions, institutions that dedicate their time and money to research and development, and even students that constantly explore new avenues.

And Richard is right: Michael Bell’s proposition has not been tested and criticized, but also, not everything is about IBM, not all the languages are object-oriented programming, and not all software modeling approaches end up in the UML court...

So what is the role of a balanced institution such as Wikipedia? I strongly believe that being balanced is about being able to read the market and identify the various leaders that drive it. The market is not only about the acceptable and the traditional, it is also about the future.

Richard McGuire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.McGuire88 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SOMF versus SOMA

How exactly does Service-Oriented Modelling differ from Service Modelling (Thomas Erl) or Service-Oriented Modelling and Architecture (IBM)? The article on SOMA, originally created by User:Aarsanjani, has now been merged into a generic article on SOAD. Surely Wikipedia should stick to describing the generic approach rather than picking on a single version of the truth. There are many approaches with similar names - it is not self-evident that Wikipedia needs to catalog all of these - let alone provide a separate article on each one --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Inbound Links

Some editors (for example Maria C Mosak and Richard R White) seem to be on a mission to create as many links to this article as possible, regardless of relevance. Are these genuine editors or sock puppets? --RichardVeryard (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed. I think these links (in the see also section) are unacceptable and should (all) be removed been removing. I will remove them in all bot closely related articles. I think they shouldn't be in any see also section. If they are related this should be explained in the article text itself.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not an EA framework

A great many links have been made to this content from the articles on Enterprise Architecture or it's components. That is unfortunate because I have having a difficult time seeing how this material is, at all, related to anything more than Solution Architecture. While I support the link from Solution Architecture to this topic, I strongly dispute the links from any of the other areas of Enterprise Architecture, as SOM is a subset of a subset, and not sufficiently notable to compete, if that is the intent, with EA frameworks. --Nickmalik (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)