Talk:SOA Lifecycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Is there an SOA Lifecycle?

I wrote an article in 2004 called SOA Lifecycle, which appears to be the oldest relevant item on the first page of a Google search for "SOA Lifecycle" (the others dating from 2005 and 2006). My article argued that there was not one single lifecycle but many different interacting lifecycles. Among other things, the lifecycle of a service is not the same as the lifecycle of an SOA solution. There is also some related discussion on my SOAPbox blog. However, I am not convinced that Wikipedia needs a separate article on SOA lifecycle, and it may be better to distribute this material (with adequate sources - not necessarily mine) across the existing pages within the Category:Service-oriented (business computing). --RichardVeryard 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I remain convinced that there is a need for a SOA Lifecycle that is operational in nature. While I have not read your article, I have been speaking on this topic for over 5 years on the national circuit and I've been published in InfoWorld and spoken at national SOA forums on this topic. I will provide links to those credentials, if that will establish some sort of credibility. Furthermore, I have implemented operational SOA programs at four Fortune 50 companies over the past four years, leveraging this SOA Lifecycle that is operational in nature. Finally, some of the references you make in your "5 viewpoints" link you posted on this article are actually based on my work done at those companies. Miko and I go back a long way and there was a time he only had two lifecycles, but I digress....

I don't actually see any disputing material in the reference, there is no product that this lifecycle supports (thus, it's not an advertisement), and I would even argue that this lifecycle model is THE only vendor / product / platform neutral SOA Lifecycle for those who actually want to implement SOA and not pontificate it.

I'd be interested in hearing and discussing any actual disagreement with topic material that is specific in nature. Ed.vazquez (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed.vazquez originally created this page with no references. Wikipedia's editorial policy is that material should have been published elsewhere first. Zegoma beach later added a reference to a blog entry in which five overlapping/competing notions of SOA lifecycle (including this Wikipedia page) are discussed, but this blog entry is certainly not adequate as a source for the material on this page. Ed's reply here refers to "your article" (which he hasn't read) and "your link" (which he has) - does Ed think I am responsible for both? Meanwhile Ed's material reproduced in this article describes a specific SOA Lifecycle model, rather than providing encyclopedic coverage of SOA lifecycle in general. --RichardVeryard (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

If there is a justification for there being an SOA-specific lifecycle, it should be added to the article. It seems there are many different views of what an SOA-Lifecycle is, but this ariticle is by far the most awkward sounding view. 5 Competing Views on SOA Lifecycle Stages --Zegoma beach (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This rebuttal lacks any validity. Perhaps, your ability to understand or your experiences don't provide a foundation for which you can comprehend the topic and material. Please consider the material from a perspective of how to run an Operational SOA Program. This material has been applied at multiple Fortune 50 and global accounts with great success. It is THE only model that can be leveraged to create and support a long, term sustaining SOA Program that is operational, not philosophical or architectural. Ed.vazquez (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Zegoma beach's comment is perfectly fair, and it is Ed's rebuttal that lacks validity. The point of an encyclopedia is to explain things to people who don't have prior understanding or experience; if the current article doesn't make sense to such people then it needs to be improved. I have already raised the question as to whether WP needs an article on SOA lifecycle at all; Ed thinks the need for SOA lifecycle is obvious to those with the right experience, but it still needs to be justified (in the article itself) to those without the right experience, and I think that's what Zegoma Beach was saying. Meanwhile, I don't know what Ed means by "operational" or by his apparent dismissal of "architectural" - a number of credible accounts of SOA lifecycle (including CBDI) include the planning and design phases as well as the operational phases. --RichardVeryard (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)