I'd long ago put up a very thick lens for looking at any news from the SOA space. With analysts and hungry vendors flinging the buzzword around in a mindless frenzy it came to the point where one out of twenty bits of information using the term were pure drivel. I do believe there is some substance to SOA, but it's definitely veiled in a thick cloud of the vapors. This week Service Modeling Language caught my eye through said thick lens, and I think it may be one of the more interesting SOA initiatives to emerge.
One problem is that the SML blurbs and the SML spec seem to have little substantive connection. It's touted as follows:
The Service Modeling Language (SML) provides a rich set of constructs for creating models of complex IT services and systems. These models typically include information about configuration, deployment, monitoring, policy, health, capacity planning, target operating range, service level agreements, and so on.
The second sentence reads at first glance as if it's some form of
ontology of systems management, basically an actual model, rather than a
modeling language. No big deal. I see modeling languages and actual
models conflated all the time. Then I catch the "typically", and read
the spec, and it becomes evident that SML has much more to it than
"models of complex IT services and systems". It's really a
general-purpose modeling language. It builds on a subset of WXS and a
subset of ISO Schematron, adding a handful of useful data modeling
constructs such as
sml:acyclic (the latter is subtle,
but experienced architects know how important identifying cyclic
dependencies is to risk assessment).
I'm still not sure I see the entire "story" as it pertains to services/SOA and automation. I guess if I use my imagination I could maybe divine that an architect publishes a model of the IT needs for a service, and some management tool such as Tivoli or Unicenter generates reports on a system to flag issues or to assess compatibility with the service infrastructure need? (I'm not sure whether this would be a task undertaken during proposal assessment, systems development, maintenance, all of the above?). I imagine all the talk of automation in SML involves how such reports would help reduce manual assessment in architecture and integration? But that can't be! Surely SML folks have learned the lessons of UDDI. Some assessment tasks simply cannot be automated.
SML shows the fingerprints of some very sharp folks, so I assume I'm missing soemthing. I think that much more useful than the buzzword-laden blurbs for SML would be an document articulating some nice, simple use cases. Also, I think the SML spec should be split up. At present a lot of its bulk is taken up defining WXS and ISO Schematron subsets. It seems a useful profile to have, but it should be separated from the actual specification of SML modeling primitives.