--- In service-orientated- [EMAIL PROTECTED], "jeffrschneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick, > I'm not sure why you're dogging on this. First, it is practical to > distinguish between the two so that we can provide detailed > activities and artifacts by role.
I agree that it may be practical, but then I would think there would be a more formal definition that someone would be able to put the debate to rest easily. Instead, we almost always get "architecture is high-level design" which isn't very illuminating. If it is simply high-level design, then why does the architecture term even existt? Certainly there must be more to it than design levels. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture, even the level of abstraction distinction may be off (at least in building architecture). "A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment, from the macro level of how a building integrates with its surrounding manmade landscape (see town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture) to the ***micro level of architectural or construction details and, sometimes, furniture.***" [Emphasis mine] Architects manipulate components "... in order to achieve an end which is aesthetic, functional and often artistic. This distinguishes architecture from engineering design, which is driven primarily by the creative manipulation of materials and forms using mathematical and scientific principles." A predominantly engineered structure, e.g. the simple road bridge spanning a river, is obviously different from an architected structure, e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge. It's hard to say that business and software systems have aesthetic or even artistic qualities but perhaps they do. In the last go-around on this topic, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated- architecture/message/8593, I made these comments: "Architecture addresses aesthetics (at least in the Wikipedia version of the truth). Do business services have aesthetics? How about the arrangement of the software assets of a company? Perhaps. "People state "it's cleaner to do it this way," implying a certain aesthetic value. I almost always ask for the person to clarify what they mean by "cleaner." More understandable? Exhibits less coupling? Beautiful, ornate, open, warm, airy, etc.--aesthetic terms that are often used to describe the architecture of a building--are not attributes one generally applies to business systems. "Do the "-ilities" that are often applied to business systems (flexibility, maintainability, complexity, understandability, etc.) qualify as aesthetic attributes?" There has to be more that distinguishes architecture from design than simply the level of abstraction. Well, I guess there doesn't *have* to be, but it would be nice if we could agree on it! (Ha!) Here is an article that attempts to make a concrete distinction: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at- sei/columns/the_architect/2003/1q03/architect-1q03.htm -Rob
