Talk:Service-oriented modeling

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anthropomorphic and holistic huh? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SOMF versus SOMA 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, and MDD has done an excellent job in clearing this mess up (see above). --RichardVeryard (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an EA framework 

message: 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. 
* 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)
thread_title:  More article improvement is needed