William Vambenepe's blog

IT management in a changing IT world

Metchnikoff’s theory was disputable (at this stage), and people buy cialis online viagra his theory of longevity.This original definition excluded naturally occurring herbal viagra for women, such as gastric juice and hydrogen peroxide (they kill micro-organisms but are not produced by micro-organisms), and also excluded synthetic compounds such as the sulfonamides (which are antimicrobial agents).Medicine is practiced within the medical cheap viagra in uk, which is a legal, credentialing, and financing framework, established by a particular culture or government.Evolutionary theory of genetic selection requires that as close as viagra for woman to 100% of the infecting organisms be killed off to avoid selection of resistance; if a small subset of the population survives the treatment and is allowed to multiply, the average susceptibility of this new population to the compound will be much less than that of the original population, since they have descended from those few organisms that survived the original treatment.This leads to more frequent use of newer and more expensive free sample prescription for viagra, which in turn leads to the rise of resistance to those drugs.

18
Aug
2006

Is SCA to SML what SOA is to ITIL?

by William (@vambenepe on Twitter)

I very much agree with Eric Newcomer’s recent post about service-oriented tooling. In discussions around SML, when people debate the decision of creating yet another metamodel I usually make three points:

  • Need for powerful mechanism to convey constraints beyond the structure of the model
  • Need for alignment w/ XML-based messaging
  • It’s not really a new metamodel anyway since it borrows so much from XSD.

The second bullet resonates well with Eric’s argument. One of the consequences of using OO for modeling is the difficulty of mapping it to XML processing.

Now, despite its name SML is not really a service modeling language. What Eric has in mind is something more like SCA. SML is less specialized than that. Surely it can be used as a foundation for modeling services. But if you give just the SML spec to two persons and ask them to model services with it, don’t expect much useful interoperability between them. At least until common service modeling elements are defined on top of SML. Which begs the question, how does this relate to what SCA already provides?

In a very simplified way, what we see happening between SCA and SML is a smaller scale version on what is happening between SOA and ITIL. ITIL came from an operations perspective, with the goal of increasing the flexibility and responsiveness of the IT infrastructure. SOA came from a software design perspective, with similar goals. ITIL covers the whole spectrum of IT resources while SOA is focused on services. Similarly, SML came from an operations perspective and is generic enough to potentially apply at all levels of the IT infrastructure. While SCA came from the software design side of the house and is focused on software services.

This still doesn’t answer the question of the relationship between SML and SCA (e.g. can SCA be an SML-based model?) though. Stay tuned.

Related posts:

  1. More clues on the Oslo/SCA/SML trail: it’s “D”
  2. Is SML to CIM what WS is to RPC?
  3. Coming up: SCA 1.0
  4. Cloud ontology: to boldly go where ITIL, Grid and SOA have gone before
  5. Last call for SML and SML-IF
  6. Microsoft ditches SML, returns to SDM?
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow @vambenepe on Twitter.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 18th, 2006 at 7:39 am and is filed under Everything, Standards. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

«
»

Leave a Reply