[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: IBM's definition of a reference architecture
IBM defines a reference architecture (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2774.html) as: "A reference architecture is a resource containing a consistent set of architectural best practices for use by all the teams in your organization." Whereas our spec's definition is: "A reference architecture models the abstract architectural elements in the domain independent of the technologies, protocols, and products that are used to implement the domain." Our definition and the resulting specification is highly abstract, while the IBM definition is much more concrete. As we point out, the more concrete architectural descriptions should be able to use the concepts from the more abstract ones. Consequently, I don't see any conflict; as each has is place and its usefulness. Further, a highly abstract reference architecture is not prone to change, whereas as one that is more concrete has more of the potential for change. Don -- Don Flinn President Mansurus LLC e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu Tel: 781-856-7230 http://mansurus.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]