![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article appears to have been written largely as a plug for books written by the article's only editor. If the article has any validity please add other sources. -- Michig 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This would be an excellent opportunity to understand our software world by looking at it from a different perspective. It is unlike any other exising modeling concept. It sounds like a fresh idea, as presented in this article, can help us finally model our heterogeneous software environment without actually delving too much into the underline language platforms and other constraints. Is it possible? Can it be done? Anita Rogel, MSVA
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)
Some editors (for example Maria C Mosak and Richard R White) seem to be on a mission to create as many links to this article as possible, regardless of relevance. Are these genuine editors or sock puppets? -- RichardVeryard ( talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
I think this article needs some more improvement:
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)
References
I just merged/redirected the following three articles here:
I have the following reasons:
Even worse it is very confusing for readers to have four articles about the same subject. These articles are all interconnected and will catch the reader in a dead alley.
I already made clear that any new text, could be added here as a start.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
10 October 2016 (UTC) I understand the rationale for the merge, Marcel, but I also support Richard's views and comments. The result of the merge is very unbalanced: 80% on SOMF, 20% on general service modeling and SOMA. At present, the article comes across as a marketing plug for one particular method (the one by Bell). I do not think that this is a message Wikipedia wants to send. How about cutting the SOMF part significantly? And adding information on the many other methods?
Moreover, 8 years have passed since the merge, and many additional service modeling concepts have been published, from original research to 2nd generation studies and practice reports. These should be featured (or the page should be renamed to "SOMF" (imho).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article appears to have been written largely as a plug for books written by the article's only editor. If the article has any validity please add other sources. -- Michig 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This would be an excellent opportunity to understand our software world by looking at it from a different perspective. It is unlike any other exising modeling concept. It sounds like a fresh idea, as presented in this article, can help us finally model our heterogeneous software environment without actually delving too much into the underline language platforms and other constraints. Is it possible? Can it be done? Anita Rogel, MSVA
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)
Some editors (for example Maria C Mosak and Richard R White) seem to be on a mission to create as many links to this article as possible, regardless of relevance. Are these genuine editors or sock puppets? -- RichardVeryard ( talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
I think this article needs some more improvement:
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)
References
I just merged/redirected the following three articles here:
I have the following reasons:
Even worse it is very confusing for readers to have four articles about the same subject. These articles are all interconnected and will catch the reader in a dead alley.
I already made clear that any new text, could be added here as a start.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
10 October 2016 (UTC) I understand the rationale for the merge, Marcel, but I also support Richard's views and comments. The result of the merge is very unbalanced: 80% on SOMF, 20% on general service modeling and SOMA. At present, the article comes across as a marketing plug for one particular method (the one by Bell). I do not think that this is a message Wikipedia wants to send. How about cutting the SOMF part significantly? And adding information on the many other methods?
Moreover, 8 years have passed since the merge, and many additional service modeling concepts have been published, from original research to 2nd generation studies and practice reports. These should be featured (or the page should be renamed to "SOMF" (imho).