I was re-reading the Microsoft Architecture Overview by Michael Platt that’s up on Architecture Center. It’s a little old, but still very valuable. In the overview, Michael discusses four perspectives on the enterprise architecture: business, application, information, and technology which are commonly collectively referred to as BAIT. (Note, I think it was Meta Group coined the term BAIT, but I’m not sure. Whoever did come up with the term, I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t MSFT). However, as we march forward building services, I wonder if we need to regularly consider a couple of more perspectives.

I don’t think service-orientation dramatically affect business or technology architecture. One of the big advantages of using web services to implement your services is that you can reuse a lot of the web-based technology infrastructure that companies spent the later part of the nineties building out. Likewise, while services will enable organizations to be agile and better achieve their business goals, I don’t think it changes the actual goals significantly. However, application and technology architecture change radically when moving from an application-centric to a service-oriented approach.

When considering services, the application perspective is broadened to include both applications and services. According to our conceptual architecture, an application implements a user interface while a service is a discrete unit of logic exposing a message-based interface. Even though they are both typically written in code, I’m not sure lumping them together is the right architectural approach. Building a single service has many architectural similarities to building an application, but an SO design also has to tackle the architecture as a system-of-systems which the application-centric approach never had to worry about.

Likewise, the information perspective currently covers data both inside services (or apps – here the distinction is less important) and inside messages. Obviously, the approach to data private to a service will differ greatly from the approach to data inside messages. Things like transactional integrity, immutability, extensibility and encapsulation apply very differently to data and message architecture.

Each of the perspectives covers many different subtopics, so maybe there’s no need to break services out from applications or messages out from information. However, I’m on record stating that I think using services “represents a fundamental change to the architecture model that the vast majority of systems running today were built on”. Thus, I think that fundamental change should be surfaced in language we use to describe the architecture, since language influences thought. Granted, BSMAIT isn’t as cool an acronym as BAIT, but it’s far more representative of the way the next generation of systems are going to be architected.

I’m behind on my blog reading (it’s been one of those weeks) but I just found Scott’s post of PowerPoint Advice. He couldn’t be more right about not reading slides (and not just because he linked to me). This is a sure sign of a presenter who doesn’t know the material. Back when I was explaining .NET to customers 3-5 times a week, I could do the presentation on a whiteboard while hanging upside down blindfolded

I actually try to avoid slides when possible and just explain everything with words and a whiteboard. The nice thing about this approach is that I can be flexible when the audience needs me to be. Today, I presented to a group of architects from an ISV on Metropolis and SOA. I had slides at the ready, but I spent most of the time just talking with the audience, not to them. When I finally did go to the slides, I found I had covered the vast majority of the information I wanted to explain and the slides were more of a hiderance than a help. I shut down the projector a few minutes later and went back to just talking.

Granted, for larger audiences (like TechEd), you need to use slides, but they should be a fall-back position when needed, not the first tool out of the toolbox. If you have to do slides, please follow Scott’s advice.

Almost exactly year ago, my life was changed forever by the arrival of my son Patrick. I tried to approach my imending fatherhood with an open mind, realizing that my life was going to change but not really sure exactly how. So far, I think I’m doing pretty well. Today, Patrick is walking (in spurts), talking (in gibberish mostly), eating solid foods and otherwise making everyone around him smile. I don’t write as much code, play as much XBOX or read for fun as much as I used to, but I do seem to smile a lot more.

I am truly blessed to have such an amazing wife, son and job.

We just pushed out a bunch of new content on MSDN Architecture Center. The Architecture Strategy Series is a collection of video presentations that have been delivered at Architect Forums around the world since last November.

Most notably among these seminars is an updated version of Pat Helland’s PDC talk. In theis version, he introduces the Metropolis analogy. Metropolis is an analogy between the evolution of cities during the Industrial Revolution and the evolution of enterprises during the Information Revolution. I find this analogy very illuminating when talking to people about where we’re headed in information technology. Even if you attended or watched the PDC Architecture Symposium talk, I highly recomend watching this session.

Other sessions include:

• Information & Application Architecture for the Service-Oriented Enterprise
• Solution Architecture for the Service-Oriented Enterprise
• “Longhorn” Client Strategy
• Dynamic Systems Initiative
• Microsoft Systems Architecture
• Real Time Collaboration
• Trustworthy Computing

BTW, is there any interest in us making this content available for download? If so, what formats are important? PowerPoint slides, audio only, or the entire audio/video/slides experience?

(Note – As usual, my normal disclaimer applies. However, let me add to that by saying: in this post, any negative comments regarding AOL executives has nothing to do with the competitive relationship between my employer (Microsoft) and AOL. For the purposes of this post, I’m a sports fan, not a b0rg. We will return to our regularly scheduled technical blogging shortly.)

Ted Leonsis is an abomination to the sport of hockey. He has transformed a Washington Capitals team that had gone to the Stanley Cup finals the year before he bought them into little more than a minor league hockey team unable to escape the basement in the standings. And to top it off, he has somehow managed to alienate the fans and lose $30 million dollars a year doing it.

His AOL bio claims that Leonsis “has employed state-of-the-art consumer and interactive initiatives to dramatically boost the Capitals’ attendance and revenue.” Really? Then why is he losing $30 million a year? Note to Ted: the best way to dramatically boost attendance is to actually field a competitive team.

His WashingtonCaps.com bio claims that Leonsis is “[k]nown for his fan-friendly approach as an owner”. At least, he was until he got into a fight physical altercation with a fan who had the nerve to criticize Leonsis in the wake of the Jagr trade. Note to Ted: don’t include fisticuffs with fans who actually paid to come see your team in your “List of 125 Ways We Are New and Improved”.

And now, he has traded Peter Bondra for a bag of old pucks minor leaguer and a draft pick. In the world of sports, trades aren’t usually a big deal. But this is not a normal trade. Bondra was “Mr. Capital”, having spent his entire 14 year career with the Caps. He is the Caps all-time leading scorer. He was on the verge of having played more games for the Caps than anyone in their history. And even though the team was in the cellar, he wanted to stay and help them rebuild. When he was talking to the press, he cried. In this age of multi-million dollar athlete salaries with the rampant “me first” attitude, a five-time all-star cried because he wanted to stay with the team he loved rather than be traded to a legitimate Stanley Cup contender. Yet Leonsis even tried to spin this: “allowing [Bondra] the opportunity to win a Cup is important.” Of course, it’s important, but having a player who loves where he plays and fans that love him right back is much more important.

Of course, if Bondra is expendable, then so is anyone else with any talent whatsoever. Only Kolzig, Gonchar and Witt remain from the ’98 Stanley Cup Finals team. How long until they are dumped to reduce salary allowed the opportunity to win a Cup with some other team? (rumor mill has it Gonchar is next on the trade block, going to the Devils)

Suddenly, I am looking forward to an extended lockout in the wake of the expiring Collective Bargaining Agreement. Watching the pitiful product Leonsis has foisted on Washington area hockey fans is a disgrace.

Since all my favorite players are on one way tickets out of town, I actually hope that the Capitals continue to suck until Leonsis has lost so much money that he has no choice but to sell the team.