Then I found out that it was an IT system. But the way that they justify the system was similar to an interesting architectural solution.They said "There is the widely-agreed upon definition of service-oriented architecture other than its literal translation that it is an architecture that relies on service-orientation as its fundamental design principle. Service-orientation describes an architecture that uses loosely coupled services to support the requirements of business processes and users. Resources on a network in an SOA environment are made available as independent services that can be accessed without knowledge of their underlying platform implementation. These concepts can be applied to business, software and other types of producer/consumer systems."
OASIS (the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) defines SOA as the following:
A paradigm for organizing and utilizing distributed capabilities that may be under the control of different ownership domains. It provides a uniform means to offer, discover, interact with and use capabilities to produce desired effects consistent with measurable preconditions and expectations.
And it also a bold statement from other profession how they look at the technology which now widely trusted by the architects for their graphical presentation and etc.
"Architecture is not tied to a specific technology. It may be implemented using a wide range of technologies, including REST, RPC, DCOM, CORBA or Web Services. SOA can be implemented using one of these protocols and, for example, might use a file system mechanism to communicate data conforming to a defined interface specification between processes conforming to the SOA concept. The key is independent services with defined interfaces that can be called to perform their tasks in a standard way, without the service having foreknowledge of the calling application, and without the application having or needing knowledge of how the service actually performs its tasks."
It seems something interesting to "imagine" the terms which might be apply to the profession, but still the abuse words on architecture is unacceptable.
"There is nobody else who could protected the profession
beside architect himself"