Dion Hinchcliffe's Web 2.0 Blog
TamTamy by Reply

Blog Feed

Subscribe By E-Mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dion Hinchcliffe on Twitter

    Recent Readers

    Web 2.0 Ajax SOA Power Panel

    Web 2.0, Ajax and SOA Power Panel with Dion Hinchcliffe and Jeremy Geelan
    Click above to watch a SYS-CON Power Panel discussion on Web 2.0, Ajax, and SOA with Dion Hinchcliffe, Jeremy Geelan, and other industry notables including SOA Web Services Journal Editor-in-Chief, Sean Rhody. Taped on Dec 7th, 2005 from the Reuter's TV studio in Times Square.

     

    Is Web 2.0 The Global SOA?

    posted Friday, 28 October 2005
    Are we heading towards an architectural singularity in the software industry? Sometimes it looks that way. If you do a superficial comparison at least, Web 2.0 is all about autonomous, distributed services, remixability, and is fraught with ownership and boundary/control issues. And yet, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is all about, you guessed it, autonomous, distributed services, composite functionality, and is fraught with ownership and boundary/control issues. Sound similar, no?

    It does seem that we have a classic case of fractal architecture on our hands. Is Web 2.0 actually the most massive instance possible of service-oriented architecture, realized on a worldwide scale and sprawling across the Web? The answer folks is, apparently so.

    I've been thinking about this carefully for several weeks now as the similarities seemed to inexorably call to each other as I worked with each of them in turn (disclaimer: I'm a SOA architect by trade). Both Web 2.0 and SOA are already slippery, nebulous concepts yet there are unmistakable patterns within each that actually are very tightly related, though wrapped in slightly different cloth. Each encourages the liberation of the underlying functionality of software systems by providing open access to everyone that needs it. Both warmly embrace Web services and the aggregation of existing functionality into new solutions. And Web 2.0, according to O'Reilly, looks at Data as the Next Intel Inside, making large, back-end database driven functionality a core competency. SOA totally gets this as well. And both Web 2.0 and SOA provide the building blocks for creating people-centric processes starting at the scale of an organization and going up.






    Granted, most SOAs are conceptually trapped inside an organization's firewall or VPN. And Web 2.0 envisions the global Web as the stage writ large upon which to act out your grand visions of building collective intelligence and mashed up functionality. But scale is only one of the minor differences really, and not a genuine discriminator at all.

    Do the linkages go deeper, to a more fundamental level? Are Web 2.0 and SOA different at their core and if not, how exactly do they relate?

    I believe that there are at least two significant connection points. One is that Web 2.0 can be conceptualized as a global SOA. Two, that many traditional brick-and-mortar business that are currently using SOA as their architectural model will want to connect their Web/Web 2.0 faces up to their SOA. This makes Web 2.0 not just being the Global SOA but makes meeting smaller SOAs everywhere not just likely, but inevitable. Note that the respected industry analysis firm, Gartner, recently said that by 2008 that 80% of all software development will be based on SOA. And interestingly by 2006, Gartner believes that 60% of the $527 billion IT professional services industry will be based on exploiting Web services and technology. We're talking serious convergence of focus here folks. If true, this means that more than half of all software development, SOA and otherwise, will revolve around the Web, inside or outside organization boundaries. All of this means Web 2.0 and SOA will meet each other both coming and going, and begin to become each other as well.

    Web 2.0 = Global SOA? Why Should We Care?

    But the real question really is does the relation of the two give us an advantage as we design and build Web 2.0 applications, services, and SOAs? One problem could be that many folks outside the IT industry just haven't heard of SOA. And even then, there are vociferous arguments about what an SOA really is, just like there are endless debates about what Web 2.0 is. But in the end, there are best practices that need to cross pollinate here and SOA's IT-bound sphere of influence isn't really a factor. In fact, really only Web 2.0 designers (yes, you) will have to understand these techniques and their connections. Web 2.0 users themselves will generally be blissfully unaware of Web 2.0 as the global SOA.

    Now, don't get me wrong. Web 2.0 and SOA also have significantly divergent elements too. Web 2.0 emphasizes a social aspect that SOA is completely missing. And probably to its lasting detriment. SOA has much more central control, management, and governance while Web 2.0 is free wheeling, decentralized, grassroots, and with absolutely no command and control structure. Web 2.0 also talks about presentation, the front-end displayed to the user. SOA is largely silent on the issue of presentation though it certainly admits it exists. So SOA tends to be generic and faceless where Web 2.0 makes much of human/service interaction. They seem to need each other to be whole. Finally, Web 2.0 is almost too informal and practically calls out for discipline while SOA is mute and autistic in comparison, a technical virtuosity that wants to be social but doesn't know how.

    All of this makes me want to view one through the other to check basic principles. For example, SOA has best practices for building business processes into vast supply chains (so too does Web 2.0). SOA is also a mature view of software that eschews a technical view of information and data. And it identifies a motive force for these processes via something called orchestration. This is a concept that Web 2.0 does not have explicitly and could certainly use (an orchestration mash-up anyone?) though it is provided in some degree by its users. SOA principles also encourage creation of a common vocabulary across systems that is in the language of the domain (common definitions of customers, order, channel, product, for example). So it gets very close to addressing a big issue in software development today: That too many IT systems today tend to have technology myopia and ignore their most important elements... the people that use them and the way that they work. Web 2.0 gets this part even more right in all the significant ways. Web 2.0 embraces people, collaboration, architectures of participation, social mechanisms, folksonomies, real-time feedback, etc. All things that SOA, in its grey, dull, corporate clothes, does not, at least not explicitly. The complementary nature between the two seems clear.

    So, I believe there are complementary synergies between these two powerful software approaches. One can very much be used to check and finish the other. SOA is both the "Mini-Me" of Web 2.0 (identical in almost every way but 1/8 its size) and a key archetype for it as well. Though admittedly one that lacks a few important ingredients. What is compelling, and I'll talk about this in detail in future articles, is that Web 2.0 actually has powerful mechanisms that "complete" SOA (if you'll allow one last Austin Powers reference.) Web 2.0 offers a face to SOA with numerous best practices for presentation, has emerging technical innovation like radical decentralization that is necessary for stability and scalability which SOA too often doesn't address, and Web 2.0 identifies important techniques to immerse users into social processes that can make SOA data and services vastly more valuable.

    Yes, so Web 2.0 is a global SOA, done right for the whole world. It's big, it's everywhere, and it's here today.

    Do you agree that Web 2.0 is the Global SOA? Post your thoughts below...

    Update: Early stage VC investor Peter Rip had some interesting things to say about this article, including "Web 2.0 is a lighter weight version of SOA."
    Update 2: Both Richard Monson-Haefel and ZDNet's Joe McKendrick weighed in on this topic with good observations and commentary.
    Update 3: This eventually turned into the SOA Web Services Journal cover story in Dec. 2005: Web 2.0: The Global SOA.  This in turn led to March's SPARK event with Microsoft on the convergence of Web 2.0, SOA, and SaaS.
    Update 4: This topic (and related issues for Web 2.0 in the enterprise) has turned into a regular blog on ZDNet.
    Update 5 in May, 2006: Om Malik writes a detailed piece on the future of Web 2.0 and is most sanguine about it for the enterprise, interestingly enough, and links to this post.


    Technorati:
    web2.0, soa


    links: del.icio.us    



    AddThis Social Bookmark Button

    1. Harish Kumar left...
    Saturday, 29 October 2005 1:50 am :: http://www.onebigweb.com/blog/2005/10/28

    Absolutely. The problems and oppurtunities that are emerging on the web are mirrored in what is or has happened in the enterprise computing world. One can easily see the connection between Web2.0 and concepts like SOA and Middleware.

    This development is quite natural. Once a system has evolved to a particular point, its underlying components need to be decoupled to ensure that the system as a whole can continue to grow and be more usefull.

    And if you are looking for good Web2.0 ideas, you could possibly exploit the phase lag that exists between the enterprise world and the web world!

    The Web2.0 idea is associated with a whole bunch of things. But the key enabler is this architectural shift that is taking place. If the focus is on this aspect, it would perhaps help reduce some of the current fashionability of being cynical about Web2.0.


    2. Loek left...
    Monday, 7 November 2005 4:15 am

    Dion, was it your attention to compare the SOA / Web 2.0 combination to a combination of 2 bad guys (Mini-Me and Dr. Evil)? Is there any value judgement in there ;-)?


    3. J Streiff left...
    Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:39 pm

    This development will be seen as seminal in the future history of IT. I personally predicted just this synergy back in 1999. At the time, I was working for a company at the leading edge of SOA and Internet software as services were the next obvious forefront. But I took it one step further back then, suggesting that any application could be decomposed into component parts addressable via URIs and even combined in a variety of possible realizations to deliver more powerful experiences to online users. Vendor software would be hosted side by side with what has become 'open source'. New business models would emerge in the areas of licensing and pricing for example, and the whole topic of 'software piracy' would become far less important than ever before. It's gratifying to see this prediction, made almost a decade ago, begin to come to fruition, albeit slowly and carefully.


    4. TFontaine left...
    Thursday, 27 April 2006 1:58 pm

    I have been in this business of using technology to mimic and improve our lives for more than 30 years.

    It occurred to me as I read your article that we are moving another step closer. Software and the underlying technology is mimicing the growth of civilization. Just as a species, we moved form home grown, self developed, used only by us to a global economy where most things are provided as services, Food, Merchandise, Utilities, etc.

    We now are developing systems that are Technolgy consumers, going to market, selecting what they need, traveling on an infrastructure that has so many ways to get from A to B.

    Returning to create a wonderful Meal, Look, Entertainment, Business Process, Sales Order, Product, or simply more informed.

    Just as I was as a result of your article.


    5. Dennis Howlett left...
    Sunday, 14 May 2006 10:17 am :: http://www.accmanpro.com

    Experience suggests to me that business people have no real insight into any of this. Since SOA/Web 2.0 is 'supposed' to address the business, then isn't it time the industry stopped going around in circles about what I see as a redundant argument and concentrated on solving business problems - regardless of TLA?

    Where this gets really tricky though is in the inclusion of the social aspects of Web 2.0. Does anyone have a clue how this will be managed? It may be anathema to mention the 'M' word to the free-wheeling community but it is not something the enterprise will ignore - regardless of what blog pundits say. Enterprise management has been remarkably resistant to taking up new thinking/technology/ideas. Nothing in Web 2.0 leaves me to believe there is any reason for 'M' to change their attitude towards risk - which is the missing element in this type of discussion (IMO).


    6. Dennis Howlett left...
    Sunday, 14 May 2006 10:22 am :: http://www.accmanpro.com

    Experience suggests to me that business people have no real insight into any of this. Since SOA/Web 2.0 is 'supposed' to address the business, then isn't it time the industry stopped going around in circles about what I see as a redundant argument and concentrated on solving business problems - regardless of TLA?

    Where this gets really tricky though is in the inclusion of the social aspects of Web 2.0. Does anyone have a clue how this will be managed? It may be anathema to mention the 'M' word to the free-wheeling community but it is not something the enterprise will ignore - regardless of what blog pundits say. Enterprise management has been remarkably resistant to taking up new thinking/technology/ideas. Nothing in Web 2.0 leaves me to believe there is any reason for 'M' to change their attitude towards risk - which is the missing element in this type of discussion (IMO).


    7. Dennis Howlett left...
    Sunday, 14 May 2006 10:23 am :: http://www.accmanpro.com

    Experience suggests to me that business people have no real insight into any of this. And why should they? Since SOA/Web 2.0 is 'supposed' to address the business, then isn't it time the industry stopped going around in circles about what I see as a redundant technical argument and concentrated on solving business problems - regardless of TLA?

    Where this gets really tricky though is in the inclusion of the social aspects of Web 2.0. Does anyone have a clue how this will be managed? It may be anathema to mention the 'M' word to the free-wheeling community but it is not something the enterprise will ignore - regardless of what blog pundits say. Enterprise management has been remarkably resistant to taking up new thinking/technology/ideas. Nothing in Web 2.0 leaves me to believe there is any reason for 'M' to change their attitude towards risk - which is the missing element in this type of discussion (IMO).


    8. Mone left...
    Tuesday, 7 November 2006 9:59 am :: http://onwall.org

    Great post, I see racial self-segregation all the time, and I want to investigate the issue more thoroughly. I always find something new and interesting every time I come around here - thanks.


    9. Joe Volpe - security busines left...
    Monday, 11 December 2006 6:14 am :: http://keystartup.com

    This is a great article. I am new to your blog and i like what I see. I look forward to your future work.


    10. tomek left...
    Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:29 am :: http://www.profesjonalna-reklama.pl

    Experience suggests to me that business people have no real insight into any of this. Since SOA/Web 2.0 is 'supposed' to address the business, then isn't it time the industry stopped going around in circles about what I see as a redundant argument and concentrated on solving business problems - regardless of TLA?