Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [epf-dev] Proposing to rename Task "Analyze the Architecture" to "Outline the Architecture"

hiho,

 

This is all good thought.  I agree that “Define the Architecture” sounds too much like a one-pass, monolithic, up-front, architectural design task.  I like the idea of using the name “Outline the Architecture”.

 

While we are meandering through dictionary.com, I’d like to bring up this entry:

ser·en·dip·i·ty    (srn-dp-t)
n. pl. ser·en·dip·i·ties

  1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident

 

As one of the core principles of the process we are authoring is “cognizance of architecture as a means to increase quality and technical understandability”, let’s not talk about architecture as though it is something we will stumble across if we are lucky.

 

                                 --------------- b


From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 5:50 AM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Proposing to rename Task "Analyze the Architecture" to "Outline the Architecture"

 

Hello again

 

Another one from the minutes of the architecture SIG meeting of 2/22.

 

The comment was raised that "Analyse Architecture" might not be a good name for the activity.

 

For background, the text from the minutes reads:

"Is the word ?Analyze? too provocative?  Should we say ?Define??  We need to investigate if we can demonstrate that we can align with ?Serendipitous Architecture?.  So perhaps we need to make sure our verb can work with a ?found? architecture that one just stumbles on while walking through the woods."

The brief description of "Analyze Architecture" reads


"Define a candidate architecture for the system based on experience gained from similar systems or in similar problem domains. Define the architectural patterns, key mechanisms, and -- where applicable -- modeling conventions for the system."

 

I suspect that the name "Analyze the Architecture" comes from the old RUP activity "Architectural Analysis" - which (IMHO) referred to an analysis of the *requirements* from an architectural viewpoint so that the first steps could be taken towards establishing the architecture. The current BUP name suggests that the architecture is the subject of the analysis effort, rather than the requirements. Of course, the brief description makes it plain, but the task name should also be clear.

 

So, on this basis, renaming "Analyze the Architecture" to "Define the Architecture" seems reasonable to me. (But wait! I'm not done yet. Keep reading...)

 

However, a problem arises for me in that there is the possibility that this will be possibly be viewed by some as a "define-the-complete-architecture-in-precise-detail-in-one-go" Task. This is definitely not my intention.

 

The good thing about "Achitectural Analysis" is that it is obviously *not* a precise or complete activity in this regard. The bad thing is that it does not conform to the "strong-verb-followed-by-noun" naming convention.

 

So how does this relate to "Define the Architecture"?

 

www.dictionary.com gives 3 definitions of "Define";

  1.  
    1. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
    2. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.
  1.  
    1. To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
    2. To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.
  1. To give form or meaning to: ?For him, a life is defined by action? (Jay Parini).

When considering "Define the Architecture" as the new name for this Task, I go with definitions 1b and 2a. The concern I have is whether this will be clearly understood by everyone from just the name of the Task, without reading the description.

 

The alternative, for me, is "Outline the Architecture." This is the name that I propose.

 

Thanks for making it this far through the email :-)

 

I'd welcome any comments on this.

 

 

regards

 

Mark

 

Mark Dickson
SAE Practice
m 0780 1917480
w www.xansa.com
e mark.dickson@xxxxxxxxx


Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability whatsoever.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily the organisation.
Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
Registered in England No.1000954.
t +44 (0)8702 416181
w www.xansa.com


Back to the top