This is one of those bits that was clear to me in my first five years in IT so it remains clear today despite the mess that has been created! The Architect did the big picture stuff, split up the work into managable chunks and put a coherent vision together about how it would be delivered. The designers (of which early on I was one) then took those chunks and turned them into software designs that matched the architectural tolerances but which also could then be implemented by our development teams (designers tended to head development teams). This is what my Eye story was meant to show. In architecture you have thoughts of implementation at the back of your mind but you are dealing with the broad concepts and constraints, at this stage it can't be made real but you can say that something matches, or doesn't, a given architecture. In Design the implementation is at the front of the mind, its about how you actually do it.
The major issue now is EVERY bugger is an architect we've got, Data Architects, Security Architects, Software Architects, Enterprise Architects, Strategic Enterprise Architects, Business Architects, Development Architects, Database Architects, Application Architects, Solution Architects etc etc etc Because being an Architect is "cool" and suggests higher order skill however I'd say that most of these people aren't architects at all they are designers, but lack the skill of design in many cases. Most of what people say is SOA is (IMO) real Service Oriented Design/Development but that is unlikely to catch on as I've said before. Design is a special an brilliant skill, to be able to take a good architecture and then turn it into something that can be developed and delivered is a fantastic skill and one that is quite rare in IT. This is the engineering part of IT, the bit that takes the abstract (and sometimes poncy) architecture and turns it into things that can be matched down to the implementation. A major challenge in IT today is that design has disappeared, whether this be because its not "sexy" at the moment or just collective stupidity I don't know. But I would say there is definitely a difference between architecture and design and its the difference between architecture and engineering. Steve 2008/5/20 Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Oh, cool! Let's distinguish between "design approach" and > "architectural style". Yikes! > > My commentary on the discussion is posted here: > http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2008/05/woa-roa-soa-whe.html > > Anne > > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones" >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Agreedon ROA , its a design approach not an architectural one. >>> >>> Steve >> >> Can you elaborate on your distinction between design and architecture? >> >> My view is design + aesthetics = architecture. Architecture is design. >> >> -Rob >> >> >
