Template talk:Microsoft Azure Services Platform

Dynamic CRM Services

The fact that Microsoft refer to its Dynamic CRM Services doesn't mean anything, the sites show no evidence that the "Dynamic CRM Service" is a layer on the technical level, therefore it is an advertising names, and Wikipedia doesn't support advertising and SOAP is definately not a service layer even though a lot of Web Service use it, it is still regarded as part of the OSI model. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website discusses SharePoint Services as much as Dynamic CRM Services, and on the PDC2008 presentation it definitely is represented as part of the Service layer in the Azure Services Platform architecture. It's definitely not purely advertising material and I have provided a source of information. What sources do you have that supports your argument that "Dynamic CRM Services" doesn't belong there? It seems like you are basing your argument off original research. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Whatever Ramu50 thinks about it is purely OR on his part. Microsoft created it, they get to name it and WP entries should reflect the name MS provides. If there is a RS opposing MS's description, that information should go on the page linked from the template. Until then, MS's description is the RS on this matter. Jeh (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And both of you have no evidence to prove that, I need no enough to show that is WP:OR, many of the technology use today SOAP, RPC (MSRPC, ONC RPC...etc. are TCP/IP Application Layer, OSI Model), REST (is a software architecture which isn't a layer), Ajax, JSON (XHR, XDR uses HTTP). The Dynamics CRM Services has no KnowledgeBase Documentations, online media news report explanations nor White Papers to prove it is a layer of itself on the technical level. That ultimately make it an Original Research, and even if you saw it at PDC2008 then you should have no problem of providing the evidence and blogs are unacceptable in Wikipedia. If you can't provide it then why should anyone trust your creditabiltiy --Ramu50 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again... Ramu50, you are just repeating yourself without addressing the points made previously. Everything you have written above is your opinion - your OR and synthesis. The template is citing the name and structure described by MS. Using MS's own information and terminology in a template regarding an MS platform is anything but OR!

On the contrary, your assertion that the MS technologies are something other than what is claimed are absolutely OR on your part. IF you can find RS's that back up your assertion, then cites of such could go in the articles referenced, but not in the template.

By the way, once again you show an extremely weak understanding of the field; you do not understand that the same word (like "layer") is often used in many different ways. Not every "layer" in software has to be a distinct layer in the OSI model. But no, you read about the layers in the OSI model somewhere and now you assume that anything not covered by the OSI model can't possibly be a layer. Guess what, layers exist in software even when there is no networking at all. The notion that any "layers" in software must be distinct "layers" in the OSI model (which is specific to networking) is not merely OR on your part - it is complete fantasy. Jeh (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeh, particularly the last point regarding the term "layers". I fail to see why you insist that even after I have provided MS's official source you still consider it OR, when clearly it is your own view that more closely constitutes original research. The PDC2008 slides and the architecture view of the Azure Services Platform is readily available on the internet with a simple Google search, and is posted on many technology blogs. Since you insist and failed to conduct more thorough research yourself, here's a link to the PDC2008 slides regarding the Azure Services Platform, available here. Refer to slide 2. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information you provided is only connotating the idea of a layer. Possible layers are

OpenID
Window Azure (Hypervisor Layer, if implanted)
HOL

I never stated software architecture is a layer, losers. I merely meant, just because one uses a software architecture, that doesn't make it a so-called layered services or whatever they wish to call it. If a software architecture is based on a protocol of the OSI model then it isn't a layer. However, if I remember correctly I believe XMPP is an exception, because it utilize middleware and the middleware is special, because it can operate in a P2P network and P2P itself is a Cloud Infrastructure.

Cloud Infrastructure have been argued before that is a layer itself, however, if you implant P2P Virtualization in Virtual Network then it is more of mesh mapping than an actual cloud infrastructure. However, don't quote on this part, because that computing is still under development and in some sense it is tightly very mix up with Metacomputing and I can't gurantee every computing science that I said won't be revolutionized by other people idea, which may result in the re-defining the meaning of cloud.

Back to main topic, "layer" refer to things like SEO which metaphorically can be refer as a layer of Artificial Intelligence or semantic data exchange (The Semantic Web). This is not just my personal opinion, these "computing science" are also mention in Safari O'Reilly books of Information Architecture and Collective Intelligence

Note: XML data exchange is not a layer, because it is just changing the format, there is no computing science concepts, ideas, abstract viewpoints or any wise predictions of futrology base on presence analysis. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]