Although we still don't have a universally agreed upon cloud computing taxonomy, that is a model that clearly defines all of the components of cloud computing, the technology that supports it and rich implementations of standards-based tools, some, including my old friend Ken Oestreich of eGenera have scouted out the uncharted territory and tried to bring some sense to the nonsense seen in the industry.
While we are all still trying to make sense of answers to the question "What is cloud computing?", he's marched on and tried to put together a set of categories that could be used to evaluate if "cloud computing" is applicable to any given workload. His criteria can be found here.
While I think Ken is certainly onto something here, I thing there are fundamental questions that must be answered first. Questions such as "What is cloud computing?" and "How do organizations add cloud computing to their IT environments without violating the golden rules of IT?" (see Reprise of the Golden Rules of IT for more information on the rules) must be fully answered prior to addressing the issues he raises.
After all, if the industry can't decide if applications being delivered as services are or are not instances of cloud computing or has come to a full agreement on standards for each aspect of "cloud computing" environments, its a bit premature to be evaluating what applications can or cannot be deployed in clouds.
It seems that Ken is doing his best to move the discussion forward. Do you agree with his categories, the logic behind those categories and how he proposes thinking about cloudworthiness?