I will not debate the terminology in biology, urban planning, etc. I thought we were talking about software engineering.
Again - the IEEE is an authoritative source (per your request) and they say "yes". It sounds like you don't like their answer. Jeff --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:52 AM, jeffrschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > And I quote: > > "Software design consists of two activities that fit between software > > requirements analysis and software construction: > > - Software Architecture Design (sometimes called top-level design): > > describing software's top-level structure and organization and > > identifying the various components > > - Software Detailed Design: describing each component sufficiently > > to allow for its construction. " > > Jeff your quote makes my argument for me in two ways: > > 1. "Software Architecture Design" shows design and architecture being > used hand in hand (or mutually reinforcing) albeit a bit redundantly. > "Architecture Design" seems as redundant as "Design Architecture". > 2. "Software Detailed Design" reinforces my point that the only USEFUL > distinction is between "high level" X and "detailed" X; where X can be > either "architecture", "design", or both. To say that "architecture" > necessarily means "high level" and "design" necessarily means "detailed" is > unwarranted. There are lots of counter examples in common use: molecular > architecture (sounds pretty detailed to me) vs. urban design (sounds pretty > high level to me). > > -- Nick >
