RE: Comments on proposed requirements

When this group began, I spent a lot of time and effort on this definition.
It was originally in the Reqs document and has since been cut. I think this
is a bad idea. We should also include the reference from which I obtained
this definition!

Regards,

D-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on proposed requirements
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:01:58AM -0700, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > The following are based on a reading of the current version.
> > 
> > 1. What is an architecture?
> > 
> >    This question is not directly addressed, and yet it 
> seems to me to be 
> > vital in clarifying many of the issues we have faced.
> >    My suggestion (a drop-in for section 3.1.1):
> > 
> >    An architecture is a set of elements and a set of relationships 
> > between the elements that characterize the principal 
> constraints and 
> > internal dependencies within the set of elements.
> 
> Our glossary already provides a pretty decent definition, IMO;
> 
> "The software architecture of a program or computing system is the
> structure or structures of the system, which comprise software
> components, the externally visible properties of those components, and
> the relationships among them."
> 
> I don't think this also needs to be in the requirements document, but
> I wouldn't be against it.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 19:39:31 UTC