Talk:Service-oriented modeling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Enterprise modelling.
 

Conflict of Interest[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic and holistic huh?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SOMF versus SOMA[edit]

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[edit]

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)
I guess I removed this article from the "See also" section in over 50 articles. I think this is one of the worst kind of spam in Wikipedia, pretending it is connected with every thing and nothing. It is directing a lot of people in the wrong direction. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well done. "See also" sections don't work for me most of the time because they usually have too many entries. In many cases, the See Also attempts to list everything else in the same category or categories, and should be replaced by appropriate categories, which I have done in a few cases. But that's a much bigger project ... --RichardVeryard (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The next step I have taken, beside improving this article, is start removing the dead end article's about service orientation. So far I found four articles only refering to other service oriented articles. See also the (currently) last talk item here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an EA framework[edit]

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)

Agreed, and MDD has done an excellent job in clearing this mess up (see above). --RichardVeryard (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More article improvement is needed[edit]

I think this article needs some more improvement:

  • I made some previous lay out adjustments
  • And now I removed the following section from the article
The SOMF model recommends that business and IT people share the responsibility of SOA modeling activities. This modeling language is simple enough that can be understood by all stakeholders in an SOA initiative.
Why are we required to “record” the service analysis activities? The service-oriented discovery and analysis phase is not only about the final state of a service structure and functionality; it is also about business and technological traceability. Meaning, we are mandated to answer the following questions when delivering an analysis proposition diagram:
  • Financial traceability: How much it would cost (or what was the price) to transform a service from one state to another?
  • Historical traceability: Capture the date/time when a software transformation occurred (historical reasons)
  • SOA best-practices traceability: What were the architecture best practices that led to analysis decisions?
  • SOA analysis process tracking: What are/were the various options and reasons for future/past implementation
  • Componentization of Software Assets: Service decomposition and segmentation
  • And much more…
In other words, the analysis proposition diagram explains simple or complex transformation of software entities (services) that provide solutions, such as Substitution of services, Retirement of services, service Exchange, service Augmentation and other business patterns that can be illustrated by this process.[1] [2]
  • And I removed some of the listings, which didn't have any wiki-links.

Especially the leak of wiki-links make this article look like an advertisement instead of an encyclopic article. This goal of here is not just describe but link it to other developments.

Now that is exactly the problem, with the section I removed here. It doesn't have any connection to wikipedia. If this is what the original writter has wnted, he could also have erased the article and replaces it to a extarnal link to it's online manual.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Three SOM articles merged/redirected here[edit]

I just merged/redirected the following three articles here:

I have the following reasons:

  • These three articles were 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.

Even worse it is very confusing for readers to have four articles about the same subject. These articles are all interconnected and will catch the reader in a dead alley.

I allready made clear that any new text, could be added here as a start.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I welcome what you have done here Marcel, but there is still a bit more work to do. There are several different accounts of service-oriented modelling, including (but not restricted to) Ali Arsanjani (SOMA) and Michael Ball (SOMF). This article needs to be primarily about what is common to all of these accounts, not about the characteristics of this or that language or methodology. I am therefore going to try rewording the bits that appear to refer specifically to SOMA or SOMF. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand your intention, but I like to keep this article in a Wikipedia format so I re-rebalanced the lay-out. I agree this article needs more work.
  • The lead sentence doesn't make sense. Service-oriented modeling should be presented as part of a field and not as a field of its own. Every subject is unique, a field on it's own, but Wikipedia article needs to provide context in the lead sentense.
  • This article needs more general introduction
  • And is in need of a decent history section
Among other things. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)