Sweet. So "architecture" has evolved from referring to the completed building (old, old definition), to the models that describe the building (still the predominant definition?) to the process that creates the models (Gartner). (Sigh)
As a process, wouldn't it be architect*ing* (or architecture programming) and the resulting work products would comprise the architect*ure*? But even that seems off a bit. There still seems to me to be an intangible aspect to architecture. Take the Burj Dubai tower. Simply taking the requirements and principles from the stakeholders, how does one end up with a tower as striking as the Burj Dubai (http://www.burjdubai.com)? Obviously functional and engineering aspects are accounted for but it is the aesthetic eye and creativity of the architect(s) that provide the punch. This begs a question (as Gervas touched on): should the word architecture be anywhere near business and software system design? Steve alludes to this quite a bit ("it's an increased billing rate thing") and I've always wondered what was wrong with using "design" and "design principles." -Rob --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" > > > > <nick.gall@> wrote: ... > If I were to attempt to generalize the Gartner definition of EA to > allarchitecture, it would look roughly like this: > * > Architecture is the process of translating initial and ongoing > requirements into effective system implementation and change by > creating, communicating, and improving the key principles and > models that describe the system's desired state and enable its > evolution.* > > Building architects might call this a description of "architectural > programming". Whatever you call it, I believe it is the most > essential aspect of the architectural process -- because of its > emphasis on enabling the evolution of the architecture. > > -- Nick >
