Talk:Service-oriented analysis and design

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. (00:46, 18 May 2008 User:Eric Douglas)

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)[reply]

It’s very hard to present a balanced view when bodies such as IBM, Thomas Erls and others are trying to sell you something on the Service-Oriented Analysis and Design page.

I truly respect Wikipedia and I love the value it provides to the community, however, the Service-Oriented Analysis and Design article obviously needs a major restructuring and an overall cleanup. In its current condition, I’d NOT recommend to combine the Service-Oriented Modeling article, since SOMF represents a very generic approach to software modeling, including but not necessarily modeling Web services!

I am also concerned about the title of “Service-Oriented Analysis and Design” as is, since it refers to the IBM method, known as SOAD. So, I’d suggest to rename the “Service-Oriented Analysis and Design” article to “Design and Architecture of Services” to maintain a balanced approach rather than referring to the IBM method.

In addition, Mr. NickMalik suggestion to remove the Web services slant from the Service-Oriented Analysis and Design is a brilliant idea which must be seriously considered. Services for that matter are NOT only Web services. Services can be any service, including Mainframe services.

Finally, the Service-Oriented Modeling article represents the SOMF approach. I’d say that if we would consider merging it with the Service-Oriented Analysis and Design article, we should also revive the Service-Oriented Modeling Framework article, as it is the only recognized framework that elaborates on a service-oriented modeling language for software entities in general. In fact, some experts suggest that SOMF does not necessarily falls within the SOA category. It abstracts services to the level of the business as well.

Maria Mosak (01:21, 27 May 2008 User:Maria C Mosak)

I think that Maria is right. I would propose to rename the "service-oriented analysis and design" article name to "design and architecture of services". This will resolve the conflict with the IBM method that is called "SOAD", which stands for Service-Oriented Analysis and Design. I am also not for merging these articles. These are two different things.

Richard White (15:48/ 17:59 27 May 2008 User:Richard R White)

I concur with Richard's suggestion. Nickmalik (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the articles should not be merged. One defines an architecture, the other a way to implement that architecture.

I recommend against changing the name. Generally, I agree with the philosophy of not using product names owned by a particular company. In this case, "SOA" has become jargon even used by relatively non-technical people (myself included). Changing the name in Wikipedia will make it harder for us to find the definition. It would be like describing thin pieces of paper without using the word "Kleenex;" political correctness would be served but a significant population will not know what is being discussed.

schwarjb (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article merged/redirected

I redirected this article to Service-oriented modeling, because:

This article was just an other explaination of Service-oriented methodology
Refering only to other Service-oriented methodology articles.
So in fact this article was a Service-oriented dead end.
This article just summarized, what other Wikipedia articles already explained.

If there was any new text with new references, I guess I missed it. It can have been more than one chapter, which might as well be added to the Service-oriented modeling article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline linkspam

I have removed a large quantity of what I consider inline linspam. This article looked like an advertisment with all that links. Even so there seemed to be some fake inline references. These think are unacceptable for me. I hope with removing these links this problem is solved here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]