On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM, jeffrschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I love the IEEE's answer, precisely because it says "NO"! The IEEE text quoted below, which I do accept as an authoritative source, distinguishes "software architecture design" vs. "software detailed design". It does not distinguish architecture per se from design per se. In fact, it characterizes "architecture" as a KIND OF design, ie "top-level design." All I object to are nonsensical assertions such as "architecture is not design." Of course it is, and the IEEE agrees that it is, hence its use of the term "software architecture design" -- if architecture was not a type of design such a phrase would be an oxymoron. What the person making such a statement probably meant was "architecture (ie top level) design is not detailed design." Who could argue with that? Certainly not me. To avoid confusion in the future, those discussing "architecture" and "design" should qualify them appropriately with adjectives like "top-level architecture" and "detailed design". That's not too much to ask, is it? -- Nick > --- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "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).
