Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Architecture Programming (was Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: [ZapFlash] WOA is Me - Another Acronym? WOA and SOA)

Expand Messages
  • Nick Gall
    ... Sorry, the definition of engineering also has a subjective or creative aspect: [T]he *creative *application of scientific principles to design or
    Message 1 of 28 , May 30, 2008
      On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
      > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture:
      >
      > "In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping
      > from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or
      > physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of
      > structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the
      > elements or components."
      >
      > A key phrase there would seem to be "...subjective mapping..." which
      > presumably is contrasted with an engineering-based or objective
      > approach.

      Sorry, the definition of engineering also has a "subjective" or "creative" aspect:

      "[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property." [emphasis added]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

      > The etymology of "architect" listed on that page indicates that the
      > term effectively means "master builder." This would imply a level of
      > education or experience that "mere designers" wouldn't have.

      Not always. In the building professions is there a different certified or credentialed degree for architects and engineers. So you could have a junior architect working with a senior engineer. I agree that in disciplines like software engineering/programming, the title "architect" is informally bestowed on the most experienced designer/programmers.

      > Can an "engineer" create/define an effective architecture? Is
      > architect merely a role, one that can be filled by any capable person
      > regardless of their formal title & training? It would seem that
      > experience is a chief attribute of an architect, thus a seasoned
      > engineer may very likely be able to fill the role of architect.

      Agreed.

      > The second paragraph of the wiki article really seems to capture the
      > differences in my mind:
      >
      > "Architects have as their primary object providing for the spatial
      > and shelter needs of people in groups of some kind (families,
      > schools, churches, businesses, etc.) by the creative organisation of
      > materials and components in a land- or city-scape, dealing with mass,
      > space, form, volume, texture, structure, light, shadow, materials,
      > program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction
      > limitations and technology, to achieve an end which is functional,
      > economical, practical and often with artistic and aesthetic aspects.
      > This distinguishes architecture from engineering design, which has as
      > its primary object the creative manipulation of materials and forms
      > using mathematical and scientific principles."

      So both engineers and architects design, and both are creative (see my added emphasis), it's just that engineers use more science and math? Then give me a creative engineer any day!

      > It may be a mistake that I keep looking to building architecture
      > definitions, so the differences I'm looking for between architecture
      > and design may exist there but not apply to business and software
      > architecture.

      I think it is a mistake to look (only) at building architecture for definitions. Guess what they call the creative, aesthetic designer of products? Industrial designer! Here's how wikipedia defines industrial design:

      Industrial design is an applied art whereby the aesthetics and usability of products may be improved for marketability and production. The role of an Industrial Designer is to create and execute design solutions towards problems of engineering, usability, user ergonomics, marketing, brand development and sales.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design

      If we were to stick with your architecture vs. engineering distinction, shouldn't an industrial designer be called an "industrial architect"?


      -- Nick
    • Steve Jones
      Ah but then does engineering == design? I d argue not. People like Brunel and Telford clearly excelled in the architectural, design and implementation phases
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
        Ah but then does engineering == design?

        I'd argue not. People like Brunel and Telford clearly excelled in the
        architectural, design and implementation phases but were classed
        simply as engineers. IIRC the chap who did the Brooklyn Bridge was a
        similar type.

        Still looking for a definitive separation, but right now it appears to
        be yet another area of IT that requires some formalisation.

        Steve


        2008/5/30 Nick Gall <nick.gall@...>:
        > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
        >> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture:
        >>
        >> "In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping
        >> from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or
        >> physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of
        >> structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the
        >> elements or components."
        >>
        >> A key phrase there would seem to be "...subjective mapping..." which
        >> presumably is contrasted with an engineering-based or objective
        >> approach.
        >
        > Sorry, the definition of engineering also has a "subjective" or "creative"
        > aspect:
        >
        > "[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop
        > structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works
        > utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same
        > with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under
        > specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function,
        > economics of operation and safety to life and property." [emphasis added]
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
        >
        >> The etymology of "architect" listed on that page indicates that the
        >> term effectively means "master builder." This would imply a level of
        >> education or experience that "mere designers" wouldn't have.
        >
        > Not always. In the building professions is there a different certified or
        > credentialed degree for architects and engineers. So you could have a junior
        > architect working with a senior engineer. I agree that in disciplines like
        > software engineering/programming, the title "architect" is informally
        > bestowed on the most experienced designer/programmers.
        >
        >> Can an "engineer" create/define an effective architecture? Is
        >> architect merely a role, one that can be filled by any capable person
        >> regardless of their formal title & training? It would seem that
        >> experience is a chief attribute of an architect, thus a seasoned
        >> engineer may very likely be able to fill the role of architect.
        >
        > Agreed.
        >
        >> The second paragraph of the wiki article really seems to capture the
        >> differences in my mind:
        >>
        >> "Architects have as their primary object providing for the spatial
        >> and shelter needs of people in groups of some kind (families,
        >> schools, churches, businesses, etc.) by the creative organisation of
        >> materials and components in a land- or city-scape, dealing with mass,
        >> space, form, volume, texture, structure, light, shadow, materials,
        >> program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction
        >> limitations and technology, to achieve an end which is functional,
        >> economical, practical and often with artistic and aesthetic aspects.
        >> This distinguishes architecture from engineering design, which has as
        >> its primary object the creative manipulation of materials and forms
        >> using mathematical and scientific principles."
        >
        > So both engineers and architects design, and both are creative (see my added
        > emphasis), it's just that engineers use more science and math? Then give me
        > a creative engineer any day!
        >
        >> It may be a mistake that I keep looking to building architecture
        >> definitions, so the differences I'm looking for between architecture
        >> and design may exist there but not apply to business and software
        >> architecture.
        >
        > I think it is a mistake to look (only) at building architecture for
        > definitions. Guess what they call the creative, aesthetic designer of
        > products? Industrial designer! Here's how wikipedia defines industrial
        > design:
        >
        > Industrial design is an applied art whereby the aesthetics and usability of
        > products may be improved for marketability and production. The role of an
        > Industrial Designer is to create and execute design solutions towards
        > problems of engineering, usability, user ergonomics, marketing, brand
        > development and sales.
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design
        >
        > If we were to stick with your architecture vs. engineering distinction,
        > shouldn't an industrial designer be called an "industrial architect"?
        >
        >
        > -- Nick
        >
      • Rob Eamon
        ... [Excellent points snipped] ... Which would potentially speak to the differing education background rather than to the junior architect s relative
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
          --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Gall"
          <nick.gall@...> wrote:
          >

          [Excellent points snipped]


          > Not always. In the building professions is there a different
          > certified or credentialed degree for architects and engineers. So
          > you could have a junior architect working with a senior engineer.

          Which would potentially speak to the differing education background
          rather than to the junior architect's relative inexperience.

          > I agree that in disciplines like software engineering/programming,
          > the title "architect" is informally bestowed on the most
          > experienced designer/programmers.

          Generally, that's true.

          > So both engineers and architects design, and both are creative (see
          > my added emphasis), it's just that engineers use more science and
          > math? Then give me a creative engineer any day!

          It would seem so! But I would caution about being dismissive of the
          difference. Yes, an engineer will get the job done, and some
          engineers display a knack for aesthetically pleasing designs. But
          does the distinction between the two apply in most cases?

          For IT endeavors, I still think aesthetics are quite fleeting and
          hard to identify.

          > I think it is a mistake to look (only) at building architecture for
          > definitions. Guess what they call the creative, aesthetic designer
          > of products? Industrial designer! Here's how wikipedia defines
          > industrial design:
          >
          > *Industrial design* is an applied
          > art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_art>whereby the
          > aesthetics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics> and
          > usability<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability>of
          > products <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29> may
          > be improved for marketability and
          > production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing>.
          > The role of an Industrial Designer is to create and execute design
          > solutions towards problems of engineering, usability, user
          > ergonomics, marketing, brand development and sales.
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design
          >
          > If we were to stick with your architecture vs. engineering
          > distinction, shouldn't an industrial designer be called
          > an "industrial architect"?

          It would seem so. But we know the world isn't consistent! :-)

          Clearly, it's a fuzzy distinction, if any distinction exists at all
          outside of building arhitecture--which was your preliminary point I
          think.

          -Rob
        • Rob Eamon
          ... I don t think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both architects and engineers
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
            --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones"
            <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
            >
            > Ah but then does engineering == design?

            I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that
            inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both architects
            and engineers perform design activities.

            I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and
            design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity" were
            distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at
            least as it pertains to "engineering design."

            > I'd argue not. People like Brunel and Telford clearly excelled in
            > the architectural, design and implementation phases but were classed
            > simply as engineers. IIRC the chap who did the Brooklyn Bridge was
            > a similar type.
            >
            > Still looking for a definitive separation, but right now it appears
            > to be yet another area of IT that requires some formalisation.

            Indeed.

            I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am now
            exploring the notion that architecture includes a visual aspect. This
            would mean that building architecture is not conceptually equivalent
            to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT
            architecture = IT design. They are synonyms.

            I'm not quite sold on that view but that's where I seem to be
            heading...

            -Rob
          • Steve Jones
            ... I m a picture person so I d say yes, but with a caveat. There are lots of space cowboy architects out there who deal almost purely in aesthetics over
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
              2008/6/2 Rob Eamon <reamon@...>:
              > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones"
              > <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Ah but then does engineering == design?
              >
              > I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that
              > inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both architects
              > and engineers perform design activities.
              >
              > I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and
              > design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity" were
              > distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at
              > least as it pertains to "engineering design."
              >
              >> I'd argue not. People like Brunel and Telford clearly excelled in
              >> the architectural, design and implementation phases but were classed
              >> simply as engineers. IIRC the chap who did the Brooklyn Bridge was
              >> a similar type.
              >>
              >> Still looking for a definitive separation, but right now it appears
              >> to be yet another area of IT that requires some formalisation.
              >
              > Indeed.
              >
              > I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am now
              > exploring the notion that architecture includes a visual aspect.

              I'm a picture person so I'd say yes, but with a caveat. There are
              lots of space cowboy architects out there who deal almost purely in
              aesthetics over implementable architecture.

              > This
              > would mean that building architecture is not conceptually equivalent
              > to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT
              > architecture = IT design. They are synonyms.

              I'm not convinced on this one as I think there are differing skills
              that are required in the architecture phases over the design phases.



              >
              > I'm not quite sold on that view but that's where I seem to be
              > heading...

              I'll stick over here on my own in the corner then ;)

              Steve

              >
              > -Rob
              >
              >
            • Nick Gall
              ... Yes. That was my essential point. Accordingly, the burden is on those who make such a distinction (outside of building architecture) to provide some
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
                On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
                > Clearly, it's a fuzzy distinction, if any distinction exists at all
                > outside of building arhitecture--which was your preliminary point I
                > think.

                Yes. That was my essential point. Accordingly, the burden is on those
                who make such a distinction (outside of building architecture) to
                provide some explanation of the distinction they are making, because
                they can't count on any crisp distinction being commonly agreed upon.
                In particular, people who distinguish architecture from design should
                refrain from presumptuous or dismissive comments such as, "You have
                obviously confused architecture and design."

                Also, since it is a fuzzy distinction, it does not help in
                distinguishing ROA or WOA from SOA to characterize the former as
                design and the latter as architecture. Which I think is how this
                thread got started.

                -- Nick
              • Nick Gall
                ... Anyone who creates anything performs design activities . Herbert Simon s The Science s of the Artificial is a profoundly insightful book regarding
                Message 7 of 28 , Jun 2, 2008
                  On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
                  > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones"
                  > <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> Ah but then does engineering == design?
                  >
                  > I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that
                  > inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both architects
                  > and engineers perform design activities.

                  Anyone who creates anything "performs design activities". Herbert
                  Simon's "The Science's of the Artificial" is a profoundly insightful
                  book regarding "design activities". I urge everyone to read it and
                  reread it regularly -- each reading offers deeper insights.

                  > I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and
                  > design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity" were
                  > distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at
                  > least as it pertains to "engineering design."

                  Agreed. Creating a design that satisfies the most constraints with the
                  least compromises is deeply creative.

                  > I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am now
                  > exploring the notion that architecture includes a visual aspect. This
                  > would mean that building architecture is not conceptually equivalent
                  > to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT
                  > architecture = IT design. They are synonyms.

                  But as I pointed out, though the building domain chose "architecture"
                  as their label for the "aesthetic" aspect of design, the product
                  domain chose "design" as the label for "aesthetic aspect, as in
                  "industrial design". I suspect that somewhere, the word "engineering"
                  has even been used to refer to the aesthetic aspect of design, though
                  I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

                  -- Nick
                • Mike Glendinning
                  Nick, While we re getting bookish , let s not forget Christopher Alexander who describes [1] how: [design/architecture] is the synthesis of form This is by
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jun 3, 2008
                    Nick,

                    While we're getting "bookish", let's not forget Christopher Alexander
                    who describes [1] how:

                    [design/architecture] is the synthesis of form

                    This is by definition a creative as well as pragmatic task. It
                    applies to every kind of "system", whether economic, political,
                    commercial, technical, etc.

                    It frustrates me a lot to find people thinking that only *technical*
                    or *software* systems are ever designed/architected. The same
                    design/architecture issues occur in many other contexts, not least
                    the creation of value chains/networks and business organisations.

                    True solution architects, I believe design the system as a whole,
                    including all of the business [structure and process] and technical
                    elements.

                    -Mike Glendinning.

                    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form

                    --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Gall"
                    <nick.gall@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
                    > > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
                    Jones"
                    > > <jones.steveg@> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> Ah but then does engineering == design?
                    > >
                    > > I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me
                    that
                    > > inadvertently made that implicit connection. Clearly, both
                    architects
                    > > and engineers perform design activities.
                    >
                    > Anyone who creates anything "performs design activities". Herbert
                    > Simon's "The Science's of the Artificial" is a profoundly insightful
                    > book regarding "design activities". I urge everyone to read it and
                    > reread it regularly -- each reading offers deeper insights.
                    >
                    > > I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and
                    > > design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity"
                    were
                    > > distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at
                    > > least as it pertains to "engineering design."
                    >
                    > Agreed. Creating a design that satisfies the most constraints with
                    the
                    > least compromises is deeply creative.
                    >
                    > > I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am
                    now
                    > > exploring the notion that architecture includes a visual aspect.
                    This
                    > > would mean that building architecture is not conceptually
                    equivalent
                    > > to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT
                    > > architecture = IT design. They are synonyms.
                    >
                    > But as I pointed out, though the building domain
                    chose "architecture"
                    > as their label for the "aesthetic" aspect of design, the product
                    > domain chose "design" as the label for "aesthetic aspect, as in
                    > "industrial design". I suspect that somewhere, the
                    word "engineering"
                    > has even been used to refer to the aesthetic aspect of design,
                    though
                    > I can't think of an example off the top of my head.
                    >
                    > -- Nick
                    >
                  • Nick Gall
                    ... Great points Mike. I thought about bringing up Alexander, because I m a fan of his approach. I m sitting here with my marked up copy of The Timeless Way
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jun 4, 2008
                      On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Mike Glendinning <mikeg@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Nick,
                      >
                      > While we're getting "bookish", let's not forget Christopher Alexander
                      > who describes [1] how:
                      >
                      > [design/architecture] is the synthesis of form
                      >
                      > This is by definition a creative as well as pragmatic task. It
                      > applies to every kind of "system", whether economic, political,
                      > commercial, technical, etc.
                      >
                      > It frustrates me a lot to find people thinking that only *technical*
                      > or *software* systems are ever designed/architected. The same
                      > design/architecture issues occur in many other contexts, not least
                      > the creation of value chains/networks and business organisations.
                      >
                      > True solution architects, I believe design the system as a whole,
                      > including all of the business [structure and process] and technical
                      > elements.

                      Great points Mike. I thought about bringing up Alexander, because I'm a fan of his approach. I'm sitting here with my marked up copy of "The Timeless Way of Building." But he's not everyone's cup of tea, so I wasn't sure if he would help or hurt my argument.

                      Here are some of my favorite nuggets from TWoB:
                      1. "Architects are responsible for no more than perhaps 5% of all the buildings in the world."
                      2. "The fact is that Chartres, no less than a simple farmhouse, was built by a group of men, acting with a common pattern language, deeply steeped in it of course. It was not made by 'design' at the drawing board."
                      3. "We realize then that it is just the pattern of events in space which are represented in the building or the town: and nothing else."
                      4. "The people can shape buildings for themselves, and have done it for centuries, by using languages which I call pattern languages. A pattern language gives each person who uses it the power to create an infinite variety of new and unique buildings, just as his ordinary language gives him the power to create an infinite variety of sentences."
                      I like your association of "architecture" with "holistic". If I were inclined to distinguish architecting from "mere" designing and "mere" engineering, I would distinguish it by the criteria of "holism". I would reserve the term architecture for "holistic design". But since I believe that design and engineering can be more or less holistic, I prefer to simply use the appellation "holistic" directly.

                      For example: The best designs are the most holistic designs.

                      One could also try to associate "architecting" with pattern/language design. Architects design pattern languages and others apply such languages to come up with specific designs. Two problems with this approach:
                      1. Most who claim the title "architect" would have to relinquish it, since very few people create pattern languages.
                      2. I don't think languages are consciously created single-handedly by a single individual; languages, even pattern languages, are created by communities, eg communities of designers, artists, poets.
                      -- Nick

                    • Rob Eamon
                      ... http://www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at- sei/columns/the_architect/2003/1q03/architect-1q03.htm I think I posted a different link earlier in the discussion but the
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jun 4, 2008
                        --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Gall"
                        <nick.gall@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Rob Eamon <reamon@...> wrote:
                        > > I'm still wanting for a distinction between architecture and
                        > > design. I think it is the aesthetics/creativity aspects but it
                        > > doesn't seem that anyone else is getting behind that notion. The
                        > > search continues....
                        >
                        > Let us know what you find. Steve Jones is looking as well. I still
                        > think that the only solid distinction is the one between high-level
                        > vs. detailed design.

                        http://www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at-
                        sei/columns/the_architect/2003/1q03/architect-1q03.htm

                        I think I posted a different link earlier in the discussion but the
                        material is the same. This paragraph from that paper captures my
                        quest exactly:

                        "In suggesting typical "architectures" and "architectural styles,"
                        existing definitions consist of examples and offer anecdotes rather
                        than providing clear and unambiguous notions. In practice, the
                        terms "architecture," "design," and "implementation" appear to
                        connote varying degrees of abstraction in the continuum between
                        complete details ("implementation"), few details ("design"), and the
                        highest form of abstraction ("architecture"). But the amount of
                        detail alone is insufficient to characterize the differences, because
                        architecture and design documents often contain detail that is not
                        explicit in the implementation (e.g., design constraints, standards,
                        performance goals). Thus, we would expect a distinction between these
                        terms to be qualitative and not merely quantitative."

                        Alas, the proposed resolution, referencing the notions of intension
                        and locality, leaves me wholly unsatisfied.

                        Here is another paper by the same authors that goes into more depth.
                        http://www.sei.cmu.edu/staff/rkazman/ICSE03-1.pdf

                        The conclusion I've come to is basically in agreement with Nick, that
                        the only agreed upon distinction is the level of abstraction. Which
                        to me seems utterly pointless.

                        I worked at a Fortune 50 tech firm some years ago, and all job titles
                        tended to include "engineer" somewhere in the title. And when they
                        didn't, there was usually an effort to change the title to do so. I
                        used to joke that the administrative assistant title would eventually
                        change to administrative engineer.

                        Eoin Woods points out in this presentation:
                        http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/saturn/2008/presentations/Woods_Ke
                        ynote_SATURN08.pdf that the use of architect within the IT profession
                        boomed in the 90s. Our industry has successfully proliferated the use
                        of "architect" presumably since it sounded cooler than engineer or
                        analyst or "Analyst II." It seems a shame to me that we swiped a term
                        from another discipline and then reduced it to nothing but an
                        equivalent to high-level design.

                        Thanks for indulging this little academic exploration.

                        -Rob
                      • Michael Poulin
                        According to TOGAF, 1) building architecture is not conceptually equivalent to IT architecture - this is true; IT architecture is only a part of the
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jun 5, 2008
                          According to TOGAF,
                          1) "building architecture is not conceptually equivalent to IT architecture" - this is true; IT architecture is only a part of the Enterprise Architecture
                          2) IT architecture IS NOT = IT design. BTW, what "IT design" means?

                          - Michael

                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
                          To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, June 2, 2008 10:21:43 PM
                          Subject: Re: Architecture Programming (was Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: [ZapFlash] WOA is Me - Another Acronym? WOA and SOA)

                          2008/6/2 Rob Eamon <reamon@cableone. net>:

                          > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Jones"
                          > <jones.steveg@ ...> wrote:
                          >>
                          >> Ah but then does engineering == design?
                          >
                          > I don't think he was arguing for that. And it may have been me that
                          > inadvertently made that implicit
                          connection. Clearly, both architects
                          > and engineers perform design activities.
                          >
                          > I was exploring a possible distinction between architecture and
                          > design and thought that perhaps "creativity" or "subjectivity" were
                          > distinguishing aspects. Nick showed that that wasn't the case, at
                          > least as it pertains to "engineering design."
                          >
                          >> I'd argue not. People like Brunel and Telford clearly excelled in
                          >> the architectural, design and implementation phases but were classed
                          >> simply as engineers. IIRC the chap who did the Brooklyn Bridge was
                          >> a similar type.
                          >>
                          >> Still looking for a definitive separation, but right now it appears
                          >> to be yet another area of IT that requires some formalisation.
                          >
                          > Indeed.
                          >
                          > I'm still leaning toward "aeshetics" being the difference and am now
                          > exploring the notion
                          that architecture includes a visual aspect.

                          I'm a picture person so I'd say yes, but with a caveat. There are
                          lots of space cowboy architects out there who deal almost purely in
                          aesthetics over implementable architecture.

                          > This
                          > would mean that building architecture is not conceptually equivalent
                          > to IT architecture. Further, as Nick as been positing, IT
                          > architecture = IT design. They are synonyms.

                          I'm not convinced on this one as I think there are differing skills
                          that are required in the architecture phases over the design phases.

                          >
                          > I'm not quite sold on that view but that's where I seem to be
                          > heading...

                          I'll stick over here on my own in the corner then ;)

                          Steve

                          >
                          > -Rob
                          >
                          >


                        • ash galal
                          I wonder if any one will attend the SOA world in New York at 23 June 2008? All the best Ashraf Galal
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jun 6, 2008
                            I wonder if any one will attend the SOA world in New York at 23 June 2008?
                             
                            All the best
                             
                            Ashraf Galal

                          • Rob Eamon
                            ... If they are not equivalent, what are the salient differences other than level of scope? Both architecture and design describe components and the
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jun 7, 2008
                              --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, Michael
                              Poulin <m3poulin@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > According to TOGAF,
                              > 1) "building architecture is not conceptually equivalent to IT
                              > architecture" - this is true; IT architecture is only a part of the
                              > Enterprise Architecture
                              > 2) IT architecture IS NOT = IT design. BTW, what "IT design" means?

                              If they are not equivalent, what are the salient differences other
                              than level of scope?

                              Both architecture and design describe components and the
                              relationships between them. Some say design is distinguished from
                              architecture in that design specifies details. This has been shown to
                              be a non-difference since architecture can be very detailed as well.
                              But it is also just a level of scope difference, at that difference
                              seems rather arbitrary and superfluous.

                              From TOGAF:
                              "A formal description of a system, or a detailed plan of the system
                              at component level to guide its implementation."

                              That seems to capture the notion of design at a "component level"--
                              hence design vs architecture is just level of scope?

                              -Rob
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.