Open Group debates SOA Reference Architecture...

I did not make it out for the Enterprise Architect Practitioners conference in San Diego last week, but I wish I did. From this article and reports from a few of my friends at the conference, looks like there was a bit of a "discussion" about the SOA Reference Architecture.

"...when Chris Harding, Forum Director for The Open Group's SOA working group, proposed an SOA reference architecture at the organizations Enterprise Architect Practitioners conference in San Diego this week, the room erupted in a surprisingly vigorous debate."

"And that's where the debate began. Some in the audience confused the maturity model with a reference model.

Others questioned whether the world needed yet another reference model, saying that SOA should be just another "view" or slice of an enterprise architecture model. The rationale is that both EA and SOA both aim for a similar goal, of integrating and harmonizing processes and technology standards, and that developing a separate reference mode for SOA would degenerate to reinventing the wheel."

Yep. This is why we need some additional leadership here, and as I discussed many times on this blog and Podcast.

There seems to be two worlds out there, the world of enterprise architecture and the world of SOA. The funny thing is that those in each world thinks that they can do the other world's jobs. The end result...there is not a lot of synergy there, and I fault both sides. This debate is an indication of this.

The traditional enterprise architects have not done a stellar job in understanding the opportunities within SOA, generally speaking, and the SOA guys have not figured out how SOA meshes with existing enterprise architecture standards, notions, and practices, again generally speaking. Thus, when new ideas come about, on either side, no matter how valuable they are, they just serve to muddy things up even more.

Some smaller issues:

"There was debate over whether agility belongs in an SOA reference architecture, or is simply the result when you follow the reference architecture and have the right internal climate. The question was whether reference architecture should include business practices, or simply provide a recipe for the technical pieces that can enable you to achieve the desired business result."

I get the debate here. Agility is a valuable byproduct of a well designed and implemented SOA, but not really a part of the architecture. No biggy.

"Furthermore, with pieces such as standards in SOA still a work in progress, many in the audience questioned whether it made sense to define a reference architecture when nobody knows what the final pieces will be."

It's okay to define a reference architecture without the use of standards or technology. Keep in mind the technology and standards will always change, good reference architectures should transcend technology and standards, and the concepts around SOA are well defined at this point.

Back to my original point. SOA is architecture, and enterprise architecture is also architecture. The objectives are pretty much the same, so we better figure out how both work together, else we'll just see more of these debates and nothing will get done.

Posted by Dave Linthicum on February 4, 2007 03:41 PM