SOA-Q: Where are the semantics?

When I started my little series of posts called "SOA-Q" I wrote up a whole bunch of them, but so far I have only posted five (see below)... I kind of lost interest when I didn't get very many comments on the last one called SOA-Q: SOA the opposite to DDD?. Everyone who did comment asked if I had got any comments and said that they thought it was a strange question and that of course SOA and DDD are not opposites. As you can probably guess, I also think it's a strange question, which is the reason I posted it in the first place.
Not directly related, but a fun thing about anti-DDDers is that I've been talking to two such guys quite recently. Both discussions ended in them saying that they hadn't read the book and actually didn't know much about it... OK. I'm not saying that DDD is the silver bullet either, of course not, but is it interesting? I definitely think so. Even for SOA-guys!

Anyway, this morning I got a renewed spurt of energy thanks to Udi Dahan's good blog post Wither Service Discoverability so I dusted off the series and one of the old posts waiting to be aired. Here is the SOA-Q post for today:

SOA-Q: Where are the semantics?

Is it just me or has the focus by many SOA-evangelists so far *not* been on semantics, but rather more on technicalities? And, for example, the contracts that are possible to be expressed are pretty - hmmm - thin, aren't they? What haven't I read that I should?


Previously posted in the same series: