• To: 'Michael Kay' <mike@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:52:37 -0600

Some do agree.  Consensus has a quality of reach.  One 
may inquire given some agreement, what is the strength 
of the agreement based on stability over time and 
numbers, kinds and types of processes that execute 
without error based on the agreement.   A term such 
as SOA labels a namespace but it isn't homogenous.  
Humans don't care as much as machines do about that. 
Machines don't care about the semantics, but humans do.
An ambiguous term enables the humans to exercise power 
over each other.  It's the choice of choices golem.

IMO, the strongest definition is the third item.

len


From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...]

If no-one can agree what a term means, just stop using it.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Prev by Date: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Next by Date: Re: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Previous by thread: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Next by thread: RE: Will The Real SOA Please Sit Down?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread