WOA is SOA - Take 2

Wow, Ron Schmelzer reacted, how should I put it, somewhat unkindly to my last post.  Yes Ron, I did read the whole article (and Nick Gall's too!)

I guess my point was probably too subtle.  I wasn't reacting to the fact (yes fact) that WOA is a "more concrete" form of SOA (see I did read your article Ron :-).  I'm in total agreement with that.  My point was, from a naming perspective, that's irrelevant.

Let me use an analogy.  Let's say we discovered intelligent carbon-based life on mars.  Would it be better to talk about it as "intelligent life" or as "a more specific type of carbon-based organic"?  Both are absolutely true, but which one matters more?  Obviously "intelligent" is the most important attribute.  The fact that it's carbon based is interesting but, in comparison, is not nearly as important (except to a few dedicated biologists who could care less about the practical consequences of it being intelligent).

For me, the same holds true for WOA.  What's the most important attribute, that it's "web-oriented" or that it's a "more concrete form of SOA"?  The most important attribute is that it's web-oriented.  That's where the power of it comes from.  The fact that it's a more concrete form of SOA is interesting, but not nearly as important.

That's why I think we should refer to it as WOA, not "web-oriented SOA."  We need to put the emPHASis on the right syllABle... Unless you'd prefer that I call you "carbon-based organic Ron" from now on. :-)