Re: [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] What’s in a name?
Hi Paultoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Great start. I'd have started with Shakespeare too!
The point for me, as I said in the last Sync Telco, was the issue is not just the nomenclature. It's understanding what comprises each of the concepts and what role in the development process they serve. An architecture differs from a design which differs from an implementation at least in the level of abstraction and granularity.
I'll probably have to expand on the idea in the future (and I don't have time now). But for now, I'll give a small example:
The architecture of a rose is probably aligned with the attributes that make it recognisable:
- a stem with thorns, branches and leaves
- a flower with a certain distinctive petal form
- a distinctive smell that may or may not repel enemies
The design of a rose could
- refine the shape and effects of the thorns, branches, leaves, petals, to support structural stability, environmental robustness, etc.
- address nourishment and reproduction issues, adding roots, pistils and stamen
The implementation of a rose might detail the different breeds of roses.... Hey, even botanists get it :-) 
I'm not a botanist, and off the top of my head, I'm not sure whether the non-functional aspects (nourishment and reproduction) aren't architectural concerns, but I'm using the example as a light-hearted example of the differences in abstraction and granularity.
BTW, the _Name_ of the Rose is a vaastly different kettle of fish.
On 04/05/2021 18:19, Paul Albertella wrote: