It seems like not a day goes by lately in which some new story of malfeasance in office doesn't come out - whether it's lying under oath, using the services of a call girl, or spying on other officials in the government in order to further a personal agenda. Clearly, our elected officials don't have a clue about the meaning of governance.

I had the opportunity recently to speak at a Microsoft event on Web 2.0. It was an interesting evening, with speakers from several organizations discussing various issues and strategies that could be used to move the bar forward on the Web. Now if you're a faithful reader, you've seen me rant every so often about the inadequacies of browser technology when it comes to delivering applications over the Internet.

As a student of physics, Albert Einstein is one of my personal heroes. Aside from being one of the most brilliant minds to ever contemplate the universe, Albert had a way with words. One of his quotes strikes me as particularly apropos for this month's issue - 'Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.'

Last month I wrote about the future, what might be ahead for SOA and beyond, focusing significantly on user interfaces. This month I'm still thinking about user interfaces and the impact they have on the final judge of any SOA project - the end user. If you've read my editorials over the past few years, you're aware I'm an absolute opponent of the browser as a means of delivering applications.

At the end of the year, it's always interesting to take a moment and try to imagine what's next. In this case, I'm not thinking about whether the Patriots will win the Super Bowl, I'm wondering what comes after service-oriented architecture. Although SOA has been dramatically hyped as the solution to cure all ills, it has still taken a good deal of time for organizations to adopt SOA in even a limited fashion.

Recently I had a chance to do some training in France. I participated in a week of coursework with classmates from all over the world. Some were from France, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and England; others were from even further - the United States and even India. To say the least, it was an eye-opening experience and dramatic evidence that standards and interoperability are important in all aspects of our work as technologists.

I have no children myself, but I've watched my nieces and nephew grow from newborns to walking, talking, independent individuals over the years. To me, one of the most fascinating parts of watching a child grow is seeing them go from their first tentative, hesitant steps to toddling around, grabbing the furniture at every opportunity but gaining mobility to finally running around and crashing into my legs more often than I care to think about.

SOA - which provides capabilities for loosely coupling these duplicate systems, federating the data between them and managing the concept of systems of record - is an enabler that eases the pain of bringing two entities together. Much like a catalyst that enables a reaction, SOA simplifies the integration requirements by lowering the barriers for simultaneous operation. It also provides the ability to provide a common façade over multiple integration points, allowing the indefinite operation of redundant systems, as well as for the eventual retirement of some of the redundant software.

When Web services first burst onto the scene, which in my mind was the beginning of the SOA movement, one of the biggest challenges faced by early implementers was the perceived lack of security. Fear and uncertainty abounded, and it was years before the majority of IT organizations became comfortable with the level of security that could be provided. What I find interesting at this juncture, when SOA is now a fairly well-established architectural paradigm, is that in many ways Security is the security blanket (you had to know this was coming) of SOA.

Recently SOAWorld Magazine was the host of a conference on SOA and Web 2.0 in New York City. SOAWorld 2007 brought together an amazing group of IT professionals who helped describe and expand the definitions of SOA. Web 2.0 is more than just AJAX. RSS feeds and blogs provide new ways to publish and edit Internet-based content and form communities. Flash and a host of other technologies are going a long way to provide the rich Internet application landscape that may make the browser truly useable instead of downright annoying. In time, the plug-ins may replace the browser entirely, which would be a godsend (in my opinion at least).

Many recent science fiction novels deal with the concept of nanites - tiny bits of computers than can aggregate themselves to form new larger composites to assist their host. These concepts typically relate to making human cells self-healing, but they also have their sinister aspects, like the terminator, made out of liquid living metal in the last movie, who could reconfigure himself at will into any shape, and recover from any injury.

We all do it from time to time - forget something, get it out of sequence - and experience that annoying feeling that we've just done something incredibly stupid. I usually arrive at the dry cleaners to pick up my clothes, only to realize I'd left the next batch behind. Fortunately, it's not a long drive. But it's usually because I'm in a rush, trying to accomplish multiple things. If I slowed down just a second, I might accomplish more.

Sometimes it seems like it takes forever for new technology to be adopted, and even when a technology goes mainstream, it seems as if people cling to the old ways long after a better way has been shown. Heck, I drive a car but still have a couple of horses - sometimes you just want the old and familiar around.

You know, I love an election year. The drama, the emotion, the positioning, it all makes me think about running for office myself - or at least going through the motions to generate a large war chest that I can dip into (I AM from New Jersey, it's a time-honored tradition). Oh, wait a minute this isn't an election year. Not that you'd know it from the slew of politicians tossing their hats in the ring. I guess it's a good idea to get in the race early if you're aiming for the brass ring.

This month I thought I'd put on my sales hat for a moment and talk about what it takes to actually sell someone on the concept of using service-oriented architecture as the underlying paradigm for an organization's information technology implementation and direction. In part this is because there's still a good deal of resistance to SOA as that basis.

One of the most interesting aspects of being a consultant is that I get exposed to any number of different facets of system design in the course of an assignment. While I tend to focus more on application and integration work, I find it fascinating to deal with the concepts of services in the context of infrastructure.

In some ways, an industry is like a country. It has its citizens, the corporations, its own particular nuances that serve to make one industry just that much different from another (think insurance and financial services) as to be distinct, and it has a language.

There's a guy I know who's incredibly gifted when it comes to building things. I've watched him repair a barn, build a new shed, put up a roof - you name it; if it can be done with wood and tools, this is the guy to do it. And I've never seen him use a plan - he just knows what to do.

If I were a lot more paranoid than I am (well, perhaps at least a little more than I am), I might suspect that the various free e-mail programs were a social engineering attempt by the big software coalition (yes, I know, it doesn't exist) to ultimately change the way we use our computers.

Nothing is more enlightening for a technologist than to observe development in progress. We're faced constantly with a bewildering array of choices and tools. We see specifications on paper that then become something completely different when we actually get to see them implemented in actual software that we then configure to meet our needs, or at least we hope.

As editor, I review a great many proposals for articles. A good portion of them deal with SOA, which is to be expected. When I review them, I'm reminded that there are two very different views of SOA, which in my opinion are both equally true. I call this the SOA Dichotomy, because these views seemingly contradict one another.

Imagine trying to solve a puzzle without being certain what the end result should look like, much less how the pieces fit together. Now imagine trying to build the puzzle pieces themselves. Bit of a challenge? To say the least! But this is exactly the situation facing many business and IT executives when it comes to complying with the increasing number of standards and regulations in their industries today.

It's sometimes funny to write about service-oriented architecture. One of the things I say often and believe is that you can't buy a service-oriented architecture. SOA is not just technology, it's philosophy, organizational change, and business transformation. There's no place to buy that kind of dramatic, deeply impacting change.

I'm sitting in the airport, waiting for my end-of-week flight, and listening to the latest security controversy. Apparently the government has compiled a database of phone records as part of their fight against terrorism - the theory being that by analyzing the call patterns and using some social engineering, they might be able to identify terrorist activity.

If you work in the IT industry long enough, you're bound to hear one particular joke (well, you'll hear a number, I want to focus on this one) - 'What's the only thing worse than no architect on a project?' The answer of course is 'Two or more'. And of course that's true, since when you put four architects in a room, you get five opinions (at least one is schizophrenic) on anything.

Recently I happened upon a blog site that had a discussion of one of my previous articles, one in which I proposed a need for a new 'browser.' The discussion was very interesting, but it was obvious to me I had not been clear about what I was asking for. Some of the folks on the board suggested that we could do what I wanted using Swing. Others realized that that required an installed or installable software distribution, and fixed on things like the Ruby language as a different approach. While all of these ideas had some merit, they didn't capture the true essence of what I think we need.

Just about every publication, marketing brochure, and IT commercial currently on parade for your enjoyment contains some mention of service-oriented architecture. If products were still sold in boxes, instead of downloaded, you would see a bright sticker on the box saying 'New and Improved: Now with SOA.' Instead of Fuller brushes, today's sales wiz now pushes SOA - it's good for what ails you.

People who know me would generally agree I'm a straightforward guy - I pretty much just like to move in the direction I've said I was going, rather than try to move from side to side and finesse something. So when it comes to technology, I tend to like to go with technology because it makes sense, and I usually assume that most IT organizations work that way as well.

If you're old enough, you probably remember the whole episode with Al Haig in the White House, saying 'I'm in charge here' during the period when Reagan was shot. He wasn't really, but it's a good illustration of the concept of confusion, and how different people react to situations. How is this relevant to SOA and Web services? That's an excellent question.

It's December, and you know what that means: holiday wishes and New Year's predictions are due. That's right, once again we'll gaze into the WSJ mystic crystal ball (okay, so it's a Christmas ornament - we're on a budget here) and come up with our prognostications and pleadings. So, without further ado, here's the list.

SOA - service-oriented architecture - seems to be on everyone's radar. It's rare to walk into an IT meeting where someone hasn't bombarded the audience with the current buzzwords, and where someone isn't extolling the virtues of an SOA. Somehow, even though it's not really about a single application, even application designers are 'building SOA in.'

To paraphrase, 'I come not to praise the Browser, but to bury it.' Because the cold hard fact of application development is that the browser needs to die. Immediately. It's already caused more than enough damage. This may seem to be a harsh statement. After all, the browser was responsible for the explosion of the Internet. It serves many useful purposes and people do billions of dollars worth of business through it every year. Seemingly, I should be praising the browser, not calling for its execution.

Like many people in the industry, I'm torn over open source software. I'm not opposed to developers creating software and deciding they do it for the love of programming, and have no need for payment - if they want to give their work away, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do so, although I think the people who want all software to be free should first get uniform agreement from everyone in the industry to work for nothing before they get on that soapbox. Even though I run a magazine in my spare time, I make my living designing software, and I personally don't want to do it for free.

I have a friend who's very into automobiles. He gets a new car every year or two - not expensive ones, but ones that can be used in stock racing (I know I'm getting the term wrong somehow) and time trials. He likes to drive and tries to get the most out of his vehicles. Recently, I went for a ride in his latest purchase. I'm used to his having computers and more gauges than the space shuttle, but somehow this one was a bit different, almost as if it were intended to get the most information to the driver. It even had a way to measure the tire pressure, from inside the car, while moving.

This column might have been titled 'on the SOAPbox,' except I think I used that one already. Nevertheless, I want to discuss platforms. Politicians used to use platforms, (real ones, not some murky promises that they abandon after the election) to stand above the crowd, so as to be seen and heard better. This was back before the days of television and radio, but still, even now, everybody loves to be up on stage, to be seen. A platform gave them that opportunity to present themselves as larger than life, better, and right for the people.

When I was in college, I considered becoming a teacher, but then the thought of the pay scale as well as some time spent substitute teaching convinced me that computers might be a better way to go. I mention this because I never did get the chance to take any education courses, so I don't know if the way we teach the craft of software development is wrong, or just seems that way because I'm not fully aware of all of the issues. If this seems a strange way to begin approaching the concept of enterprise architecture, stay with me for a moment.

Sometimes the old clichés are the best ones. I've been working with a number of different groups and companies recently, defining and refining their takes on service-oriented architecture and Web services. In thinking about the different perspectives necessary for a full understanding of how to use Web services, SOA, and business process to achieve business agility, I was struck by phrases like 'forest for the trees' and '50,000-foot view.' As usual, what you think about Web services and how to use them depends on what you do and how it affects your day-to-day work.

Despite the fact that I have a toolbox full of tools, I'm not a mechanic. I have wrenches and sockets in all sizes and shapes, and because I'm not inherently tidy, they tend to get all mixed up in the toolbox as I use them. So as you may expect, when it comes time to tighten a bolt, I have to go rummaging around in the toolbox, trying to find the right socket to use.

Recently, Paris Hilton's cell phone was hacked, and all her contact information was released on the Internet. Although I wasn't important enough to rate a listing, many other celebrities were apparently flooded with phone calls after their private numbers became oh-so-public. While the incident didn't involve Web services, it certainly did involve security, or rather a failure of security. And once again, security itself is the focus of this month's issue.

One of the fun parts of being a software architect is trying to figure out how to build whatever it is that you are supposed to build. It's even more fun when you look at the architecture for an entire enterprise, and have to make choices that integrate every complexity and account for every nuance of the portfolio, even if only long enough to get something in place before ripping something else out.