|  | | | | straight Java coding … |
| Forrester's Mike Gilpin wrote in his blog: - QUOTE - | | | | Process should not be seen as a rigid procedure but |
| 'Just as Greek philosophers tried to explain the | | | | a goal-driven assembly of information (including |
| ancient world in terms of the four classical elements | | | | CONTENT!!) based on metadata (from a repository), |
| of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air - with the fifth element | | | | interfaced with data federation or backend services |
| of Aether defining the invisible context in which they | | | | (from a registry with SOA or not), controlled by |
| exist - software architects in the digital world work in | | | | state/event progression (with complex event |
| disciplines that are centered around four basic | | | | discovery), and constrained by business rules. That |
| elements - Process, Service, Event, and Information. | | | | would be the four core elements I see. But you need |
| However, I think we need a "unifying theory" of the | | | | two more things as a solid base like physics needs |
| digital world that brings these four elements together | | | | the aether (that even Einstein had to come back to). |
| more closely……. What's the problem? | | | | The state/event controlled process container has to |
| Well, a process can also be viewed as a service, an | | | | be authorized by organizational role/policy (security) |
| event is also information, etc. Plus, you can't always | | | | definitions and you need presentation services (into |
| say that the layer below is consumed/used by the | | | | GUI and content!) to interact with the user. No role |
| layer above - sometimes the relationship runs in the | | | | authorization & no presentation = no application! |
| opposite direction. So is this a situation akin to wave | | | | Mike is right: all these elements need to be related to |
| particle duality? For you non-Physics types, this is the | | | | each other, but that depends on how you want to |
| discovery from quantum physics that light exhibits | | | | manage each individual application. In the ISIS Papyrus |
| properties of both waves and particles, and so is | | | | Platform we solved it by assembling applications in an |
| really neither, purely - it is what it is, and sometimes | | | | object-relational database, allowing dynamic changes |
| it seems like a wave, and other times it seems like a | | | | of relations at any time. There is no single exhaustive |
| particle.' - UNQUOTE - | | | | model that will work for everything. We need to give |
| I think this is a very good basis for a discussion. | | | | up reductionism in IT as in physics. I go with Nobel |
| Obviously I have a few remarks: On the subject of | | | | laureate Robert B. Laughlin who says that in nature |
| the wave/particle duality, there is no such thing. | | | | complex systems are emergent and can not be |
| Simply because there is no particle. Mass is no more | | | | causally predicted from its parts. I do agree with Mike |
| than another form of energy interaction. The duality | | | | that IT planners can learn something from physics |
| is created by how you interact with the energy. The | | | | (like everyone) and that is why emergent, chaotic |
| receiver is as important as the sender in defining | | | | social-computing on the Internet does more than all |
| what happens and it has to do with resonance. No | | | | the hard-coded applications on this planet. |
| resonance, no energy exchange. Scientists describe | | | | The social-computing thought takes us a step further. |
| each of the possible resonances as the nuclear | | | | While we need to learn from nature, we need to |
| forces or fields. But still it is a good simile to the IT | | | | remember at all times that we do applications for |
| problem. Even taken to a theoretical IT level there is | | | | humans and not for a business or to create |
| no information content transfer without interpretation | | | | processes. Seen from a human perspective, BPM and |
| on the receiver side. | | | | SOA are to agility what communist and socialist |
| What the four elements of an application are seen as | | | | governments are to freedom and free markets. |
| too depends on how you interact with them. While I | | | | Business users need to enjoy the freedom to |
| agree with the need to structure applications, I | | | | perform processes any way they see fit to achieve |
| personally feel that both BPM and SOA are overrated | | | | the business goals. Obviously they need to stay |
| as flexible means to choose the interaction needed. | | | | inside the game rules of government which therefore |
| Both require rigidity in implementation so why should | | | | requires full auditing and reporting. |
| they offer more agility? Just because they are | | | | Amazingly enough, the above are the development |
| standard? A standard is always a limitation and usually | | | | specs (just in less technical terms) for the Papyrus |
| outdated. Yes, maybe they are more flexible than | | | | Platform, the first version of which I wrote in 1996. |