Yeast Infection Sore Lymph Nodes

SOA: The orchestra and the street musicians

days ago I had the opportunity to attend a seminar on the state of the SOA in the enterprise.

The first part was the usual "evangelization" of the meaning of service-oriented architecture and how it relates the existing architecture.

struck me in particular shown the metaphor: the legacy applications with monolithic architecture represented by the street musicians, the kind that only play three or four instruments, a little 'clumsy but picturesque certamentte.

SOA applications instead represented by a fine symphony orchestra with all the components in elegant formal dress, carrying the melody perfectly synchronous.

But the metaphor is effective even in the opposite direction: self-sustaining legacy applications, released each other and essentially more "agile" than the orchestra, but also more structured plaster and disinclined to change.

I believe that ICT companies, especially large and diversified business, is the most complex and heterogeneous technology has produced.

The cause of this complexity is not technological solutions exist for some time that would allow the implementation of information systems fully integrated and architecturally compelling.

The real problem is instead primarily "political" information systems are the result of the mediation of hundreds or thousands of "actors" (Clients) that have, at different times and successive approximation, defined the architecture of the many pieces that together are the "monster" who is now the ICT.

Returning to our metaphor: it is as if the audience by requiring each member of the orchestra, the score of their own choice, without having consulted each other and without the backing of the conductor.

The result would regret the most awkward of street musicians.

Chanel 2.55 Woodbury Outlet

Enterprise 2.0 and the double bond

It 's been some time since the appearance of the term Enterprise 2.0, variation within the "corporate" technology, applications, strategies and everything is in the cloud, Web 2.0.

Compared to the expectations of a couple of years ago I would say that the results are rather disappointing, or rather heavily scaled, at least in my experience.

If the basic idea was to bring in companies these mechanisms typical of Web 2.0 "consumer" or the spontaneous creation of content by users themselves and open collaboration, and without the walls of the typical structures organizational classic, well then Enterprise 2.0 is a near-total flop.

The characteristic instruments, such as wikis and blogs are there but are "empty" or as used by four cats fans or eager to appear objective in any case failing to involve a significant population.

difficult to establish the precise reasons why that works very well in the global network can not penetrate inside the walls of the company, who blames features to users, their number, the more you have the more you us.

The impression is that the problem is to be found precisely in the incompatibility between the rules of life in business and Web collaboration.

Companies are historically (and for good reason) organized in a strictly hierarchical certmente more like an absolute monarchy to a democracy.

It 's a pyramidal structure based on the authority's formal head of the subject, perhaps with different interpretations, more or less strict depending on the size of the company and the type of business in which it operates.

In any case who is up and decide who is run down, not vice versa.

instead Web 2.0 is based on mechanisms that have as a prerequisite for equal rights for all users: the "power" is not given in a formal way (authority), but won with the power (authority).

These two methods of governance are mutually orthogonal, groped to mix a part of each other simply does not work, you can not have 'a bit of democracy into a dictatorship.

course you eat it with your cake is tempting to all, and that is that even companies in most casts conflicting messages arrive as "break the mold" with "Woe to those who break the rules."

Recently I happened to attend one of these messages: We were presented speech by Steve Jobs taking to graduates at Stanford as a warning to a different way of living on the farm.

Jobs shows off all his charisma and talent of the great communicator, reviewing the main stages of his life in a touching way and never pathetic, maybe not ever praising the losers and look at the difficulties as to evidence that may suggest alternative routes.

And then the conclusion (which is itself a quote): Stay Hungry, stay foolish. Or do not be seduced by the comfort of conformity, have the courage to go beyond the status quo.

I think Jobs's speech is absolutely excellent and perfectly syntone relation to its audience while I found it absolutely dissintono if it is pronounced (or quoted) in a contensto large corporation that is exactly the status quo and keep us to stay.

short, a real double bond that can have adverse effects on the business climate.

Big Chicken Pox Spots

New paradigms for user interfaces Seminar for Business

has been 25 years since the launch of the Apple Macintosh, the first computer with a graphical interface based on the paradigm of "desktop" or how well we know a virtual desktop where they can store their "documents" in "folders" and 'Use the mouse to select and work on documents or other objects.

The consolidation of that solution was complete and for many years there are virtually no alternative: either we are talking about Mac OS X and Linux and Windows desktop is always talking, of course there are differences but the paradigm is the same and substantially appreciated by users.

In reality there are problems: as discussed in this interesting article the metaphor of "folders" has some clear limits: eg the structure is strictly hierarchical - a document may belong to a single folder, in addition the hierarchy is determined by the user which implies flexibility, but also the right difficulty setting up the hierarchy, and then often comes to the chaos on your hard disk.

Just the main strength of the desktop paradigm is its largest limit: for ape (virtualize) the desk with its files and folders you are in fact brought in the virtual environment is also the typical limits of the physical world.

Or Document-like objects "unique" that can not belong to more than one folder, and also "closed" or not characterized by any information structure is available to the operating system.

The other aspect of the desktop that mirrors the physical world too is its "liabilities", for example if I download a desktop image from a digital camera operating system does nothing, just as if I had backed up a desk a print of a photo.

's up to me to decide whether and where to store it, and if I wanted add some information (eg name of the person portrayed or) I'd have some more problems in the digital world in which the physical (where I could write on the back of the picture, for example, using the print feature of also being "paper" and then "Document").

who got to use the latest operating system Windows 7 or Mac OS X will have something to say. In fact things are already changing.

These systems have already implemented a logic "active" on the desktop, and if I upload a picture, the system recognizes it as such and asked me to store it in the folder "pictures".

It 's a first small step (In Windows 7, Mac OS X because it goes beyond enhanced by specific applications such as iPhoto) to something new.

a hypothetical user interface should be developed based on information which is submitted to and organize them in appropriate ways, such as assuming the photo:

should extract from the picture all the information available as of the date and time shooting (they are available in the file itself), resolution camera features and the step itself.

should then ask the user a picture of other features, such as location, description, pictures and any person or entity any information that would allow correct classification in the picture itself (such as "Holiday," "sea" "dive", ...).

course, this approach applies to all information that the information system is to manage, not just photos or text documents.

Indeed I consider that the classic concept of "document" (word doc, excel spreadsheets, powerpoint, just to stay on Microsoft Office) is exceeded, or rather abused.

INTED say that too often misused one of these applications (now very powerful but also complessissime) to handle a few simple information plus so uncomfortable and unstructured, but it deserves another post!

Returning to our interface of the future, they should be able to "see" and interact with all the information which is submitted to, not only locally but also on the Web (increasingly blurred distinction but still very strong).

For example, the e-mail: If I want a date information contained in a message received via email, perhaps through an online service like gmail, the system should be able to search in that environment (maybe using the appropriate API) without my explicit action as it happens today.

So the interface or rather the system of the future is more similar to the digital version an excellent butler (I did not say assistant for good reasons !) rather than at a desk, plus a content management, with elements of an expert system that the file system.