To be clear I'm not saying that Sommerville invested software architecture as a term, what I'm saying is that his work and that of others detailed the importance of separating data/components/connections/constraints and certainly in large scale projects this was normal practice before Perry & Wolfe was written.
The application of the term "architecture" rather than "engineering" isn't the important bit, its the actual "practice" that matters. Definitions help us to then have a common reference point (which is good) but they don't mean that previous work didn't fulfil the requirements. Steve 2008/11/11 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I say, I haven't read the book. If you say there's a model there, >> then great. But none of his top several cited papers seem to have >> anything to do with a model, so perhaps it wasn't very popular. >> Editions of his book prior to the Foundations paper are not highly >> cited (~25). > > Not to reopen this can of worms when you and Steve have just closed it, but > I checked out the Sommerville slide deck that Steve referenced > (http://sunset.usc.edu/~neno/cs477_2003/February11.ppt). Slide 10 is > entitled "Definitions of Software Architecture" and it lists three > definitions. The first is Perry and Wolf, the second is Shaw and Garland, > and the third is Kruchen. As far as I can tell, Sommerville does not offer > his own definition of Software Architecture in the deck. And he certainly > doesn't date it. > So on the surface it appears that Sommerville credits others with defining > Software Architecture. > -- Nick >
