I just check out this framework and I have some problems with the layer name 'Applications'.
'Application' is a word for the whole thing or for a lot of whole things, and not for a particular part of a thing... Maybe I am wrong, English is not my mothers language.
Whats about the idea, to call it 'Workflows' instead, or 'Operations'. Workflows or operations is something which is (hopfully) carried out by an application and sofore a part of the whole thing. And this name tells you exactly what kind of code you will
found there, or where you have to search for code, when you want to follow a particular workflow or operation.
As far as I saw, the controller for the wizard resides in this layer, and a wizard is nothing else than the visible part of a particular workflow within an application. You can find the workflow in the xxx.Workflows layer and the views in the xxx.Presentation
layer. I personally trhink, this gives a nice overall picture.
((Further more, someone may start out and implement his workflows using the WF framework of Microsoft, which gets better support in .net4.0. In this case the name is a better choice, too. Isn't it? ))
(((And, maybe there a very big systems out, build up by huge teams, this guys can use the xxx.Applications namespace to group the whole lot of top level programs they need, and don't run into conflicts.)))
Do you plan some navigation support or is this subject of other frameworks, like 'Magellan'?
I just try to build up a very small application (you see the problems of the nameing convention?) and I try to follow your architecture, will see where I came out ...
With best regards