All good points. SOA is most definitely about architecture.

While I wouldn't say "SOA is integration" per se, I'd say that
integration is one of the core values of the SO approach. Services
have 1 or more interfaces. Interaction with services is via those
(and only those) interfaces. Services (and other components such as
service clients) exist in independent ownership domains. Those
characteristics are the heart of integration. SO demands that one
consider integration up front rather than as an afterthought.

IMO, integration strategy is a side-effect of applying SO principles
at the enterprise level.

Side note: Redundancy isn't always bad and eliminating it isn't
always the right course of action. Generally speaking, eliminating
redundancy is good but we must be careful about blindly following
that principle.

-Rob

--- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Anne Thomas
Manes" <atmanes@... > wrote:
>
> While I agree with the last line, I disagree with the leading one:
> "SOA is integration" . Many organizations mistakenly percieve SOA as
> an integration strategy. But it is not. SOA is about architecture.
> To achieve SOA, you must rearchitect your systems. You must remove
> the deadwood. Every organization has too much stuff -- too many
> redundant applications and data sources. SOA is about cleaning
> house. You will not simplify your environment, reduce costs, and
> gain agility until you reduce that redundancy.
>
> Anne