2008/5/27 Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Jones" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Some people think that SOA = Web Services therefore Web Services >> are SOA >> >> They are wrong. > > Agreed. > >> >> Architecture != high-level design > > Well, that's not all that it is but architecture is > design. "Architecture is the structure...". That sounds very much > like design.
I'm beginning to realise that the principles that I've used for many a long year come from my personal experience. Now I do tend to inflict this view on people (with some success in terms of improving IT) but what I'm using now is the IEEE definition where it talks about the governance of design being architecture. That to me makes quite a bit of sense. > >> >> The boundary is the difference between concept and vision and the >> requirement of implementation. > > Based on material at previous links I've posted, and my own > experience, I disagree. The distinction you're making is simply level > of abstraction. An architecture may specify detailed constraints > (e.g. implementation constraints) yet still be an architecture as > opposed to a detailed design. Agreed as these tend to govern the design. You are right in that the boundary isn't clear but I would say that architecture has become a massively popular term in the last few years with every man and his dog doing architecture (I've said it before that most SO work is really SOD). > >> Design without implementation makes >> sense in liberal arts but nothing engineering. Design is an >> engineering discipline, which is distinct from the architecture. >> This holds for buildings as it does for IT, concept and vision, >> then take it to live. >> >> Its separate levels of abstraction, which is indeed different in the >> same way as the rules of football are different from the tactics >> which are different from the play. > > I guess we just disagree. Architecture vs. design is not simply > different abstraction levels, IMO. In the past, I usually described > architecture as design + explicit principles. I now think there is a > bit more to it than that and that's what I'm attempting to explore > here. Actually you are right it isn't just levels of abstraction it is principles. Architecture gives the structure and form (I tend to use it to organise teams at the start of the project/programme) which then guides the rest, this is why I think it is different to design. It is clear that groups like Open Group and IEEE haven't done a great job in creating a simple definition of why the two are different. Steve > > -Rob > >
