A Unified SOA?

My Colleague David Sprott blogs this week on the Failure of SOA Standards
There is no need for me to repeat his comments.

In his blog, David comments on Navigating the SOA Standards Landscape Around Architecture, a paper recently published by OASIS and The Open Group. It seems to us and many others that this is an attempt on the part of the authors to gloss over the fact they have managed to produce three alternative SOA standards when the world really only needs one. Saying that OASIS SOA RA is ‘similar’ to the Open Group SOA Ontology is a bit like saying Cricket is similar to Baseball. Because they both involve similar concepts of bat and ball presumably this means a cricket team could play a baseball team?

It is only with a more detailed level of mapping of more precise meta models that anything useful can be done in the real world. Even then, the reality is it is difficult to mix two frameworks and meta models.

One of the intriguing things for me is the involvement of common participants in all three SOA standards efforts at OASIS, The Open Group and also at OMG. IBM in particular stands out as a vendor who appears to have put significant effort into them all, and with minimal visible consistency resulting. Why? How does it help IBM customers to provide them with a choice of three alternative SOA standards? Surely that only works to slow adoption of SOA, not to encourage it.

This was one of the major successes of Web Service Protocols – that there is only one standard for each requirement in the protocol ‘stack’. Even though the various protocols are administered by different bodies, they have managed to avoid competing. Well eventually anyway after some initial vendor-based alternatives fell by the wayside. And since then take up has been widespread. Partly this was achieved because vendors such as IBM together with Microsoft participated in only one activity per protocol and not three. Hence others were forced to make decisions to go one way or the other rather than sit on the fence and be endlessly compromised by choice.

And this is what the same groups now need to do with SOA standards. Combine their energies, put aside their differences and produce a set of unified standards – even if different elements within it are administered by different bodies, as with Web Service Protocols, so they can each retain some ownership. We only need one SOA Reference Model, one SOA meta model, one set of principles and so on. But once you have the common foundation, just like the Web services efforts, there can be parallelism. From our work on the CBDI SAE meta model we know that there are multiple views which can be modelled concurrently such as business, specification, implementation, deployment, testing etc.

That said, perhaps more of the competitive approach taken with Web Services would be apt. That is, I would rather see IBM back one SOA Meta Model standard for example, and not three. I am sure the competitive nature of early Web Service protocol standards activity really helped to force the pace – a sort of SOA ‘Space Race’. Now, rather like the pace of the space race today, I get the impression it will now be decades before we land on the SOA moon. Of course, if OASIS, The Open Group and OMG cut the stack up as I suggest and avoid overlap so much the better.

But why is this important? At runtime, clearly the vision of SOA wasn’t going to work without consensus on the interoperability standards. But I believe it would be a mistake to assume a similar consensus isn’t required at earlier stages in the life cycle. Time after time we see that the lack of a common SOA framework is hindering SOA adoption in organizations. Sure different projects can all agree to use Web Services at runtime, but the lack of any common standards before they even get to that point means that much of the SOA vision remains elusive when viewed from an enterprise perspective. It is pretty hard to have full life cycle asset management and governance over SOA deliverables if the concepts change for each phase. In most organizations, users have little choice but to pick a single vendor's proprietary solution to such requirements that complies with no relevant SOA standards.

I am reminded of object orientation pre UML. What is needed now is a Unified SOA.
SoaML, in which we have participated might be one step in that direction, at least at the modelling language level. Even so, TOGAF 9 has its own meta model, but so does Archimate, and there is one implied by the OASIS SOA RA, and so on. Then there are the differences even between The Open Group’s TOGAF 9’s coverage of SOA, and their own SOA Source Book. Do you know for example when you see a concept mentioned in one document it has the same meaning as in another? Often no definition of the concept or reference is even given so it is difficult to be sure. Clearly there is still a long way to go.

And let’s not forget that there is a large government and defence sector who are extending their own frameworks such as FEA, DODAF, and MODAF with yet more unique perspectives on SOA.

It is at least welcome though that OASIS, The Open Group and the OMG have seen the need to cooperate on Navigating the SOA Standards Landscape Around Architecture. Perhaps now they can move forward as I suggest and ensure greater collaboration and consistency between their efforts with a single purpose in mind.

We would be happy to participate in such a unified process. What we can’t afford to do unlike IBM is participate in three (even though they have all invited us to), and more to the point it would be counter productive! In the meantime we will continue to participate in SoaML and refine our own CBDI-SAE Meta model for SOA. To that end we have just published a draft V3 of our model which includes SoaML adoption.

Users shouldn't need to be shown how to navigate their way around multiple SOA standards. They just want to know "are we there yet?"