I'd strongly advise you to drop the client / server aspect and in
particular remove the sub-tags such as components / services.

Don't assume that an application won't be used as a component in a mash
up or used as a service to build another application etc. Also platforms
(i.e. GAE) have user interfaces ... you're going to get into all sorts
of confusion.

Keep it really simple - Application / Platform / Infrastructure.

Unfortunately by doing so your taxonomy no longer functions as a taxonomy - important components are left unclassified (or worse, inappropriately classified), including client operating systems (like Android, gOS/Cloud), hardware (netbooks, nettops) and next-gen browsers (chrome) as well as underlying hardware like cisco's unified [fabric] computing gear. "no junk" doesn't imply "no complexity" and here I think we've got just enough. FYI the process of generating the last stack involved classifying everything cloud-related I could find afterwards and I'll do the same now when I find a spare moment.

The observation that an application can feed another is exactly the thing that wrecked my head with the service layer - and a large part of the reason it was dropped. Trying to represent that an application can also serve as part of a platform results in both junk and confusion.

I'm hoping that by covering everything concisely as we have here the result won't be rejected as "too simplistic". If however it makes sense to boil it down further for your particular application then go right ahead.

Sam

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 20:32 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Unfortunately 'application layer' in the OSI case could cover Platform
> in our case.
>
> Nevertheless, I think your diagram is fine.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Alexis Richardson
> > <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Sam. That is great.
> >>
> >> To borrow a phrase: "No junk, no confusion".