Re: TA Specification meeting Tuesday Nov 7th

[Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@home.com>]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:16:53 +0800, Tim McGrath wrote:

>There has been some debate as to whether the TA Specification 'drives' the other
>specifications or vice versa.  The QR Team believe this needs to be clarified prior
>to subsequent debate and resolution of consistency issues.

Tim,

I don't understand how there can be a debate if the architecture
is the driving document. This common sense. Doing it the other way
demotes the architecture to an executive summary. I know, that is
how some organization do it, but that does not make it right. The
document that drives the architecture is the requirement
specification.

I don't plan to have a discussion on this topic during the
upcoming ebXML meeting. We got more important issues to address
than wasting time with fundamental principles that are the
cornerstone of design.

BTW, the issue has gotten some play already:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:11:19 -0500, Mike Rawlins wrote:

>In my Software Architecture & Design course this semester I ran across
>the following quote:
>
>"If a project has not achieved a system architecture, including its
>rationale, the project should not proceed to full-scale system
>development."

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:18:01 -0800, Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:

>This document is to be the blue print for the rest of our
>specifications. It is to guide the other teams in their work, ...
>
> <<snip>>
>
> ... trying to ensure that the architecture reflects the project
>team's work ... is putting the horse on the wrong side of the
>wagon.

Regards,

Klaus
--
Klaus-Dieter Naujok                         ebXML & TMWG Chair
Antioch, CA USA                                +1.925.759.1670