I have data. I want you to be able to use that data. I create a service so that you can INTERFACE with my data.
Again, the reason "Information Architecture" has become a dirty word in most IT organizations is because of these little mental circles. Like when you say "Actual implementation of a resource can be anything". What does that even mean? Are you saying there's some form of "resource" that isn't data of some kind? Because if all resources are data of some kind than there has to be some process to deliver that data. That process is called a service. Hence resources are the end result of services (as I said)
Hi SamAtt.
You know, your posting is fun to read. Nice.
Still, the reason "Software System Architecture" or anything with the architecture name on it, has become a dirty word is because there is no understanding between an abstraction and a concrete thing. What you picture is known as Intellectual Violence, an architectural antipattern. In my case, if I want to talk about data, I say data. If I want to talk about information, I say information. They are not the same thing. SO, if I say resource, it means it is not data nor service. A resource can be a document, data, a service, a process, a whole system, anything.
So, as you can see, that is no mental circle, I really mean anything. If you think a resource is just data exposed as a service, then you are missing thousands of other resource implementations. Why call it resource and not data, service or system? Because resource is an abstraction, that allows me to work it without knowing what the final implementation would be.
I think the blog post clearly mentions that there is indeed one standardised resource management service for REST over HTTP, and given its simplicity and ubiquity, that particular standardised service orientation is uninteresting and largely ignorable.
When I find someone disagrees with me I tend to either try to elaborate on my point or present a counter point to their argument. Not just quote what I've already said. You should try it
Again, the reason "Information Architecture" has become a dirty word in most IT organizations is because of these little mental circles. Like when you say "Actual implementation of a resource can be anything". What does that even mean? Are you saying there's some form of "resource" that isn't data of some kind? Because if all resources are data of some kind than there has to be some process to deliver that data. That process is called a service. Hence resources are the end result of services (as I said)