<div dir="ltr">i like colin cherry's book<div>on human communication</div><div>+ dunbar's Gossip, Grooming and the evolution of language</div><div>plus bateson's steps towards an ecology of mind,</div><div>and possibly even Lakhoff's</div>
<div>women fire and dangerous things </div><div>(if you want intutionist stuff on category theory)</div><div><br></div><div>recent stuff on graphs (Christakis and Fowler's connected is nice and accessible but</div><div>
you probably want something that covers resilience as well as cascades)</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>jon</div><div>(p..s 2ndary purpose of this email to the list is to get dave's list of v. useful references to others on e2e]<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dpreed@reed.com" target="_blank">dpreed@reed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><font face="times new roman" size="3"><p style="margin:0;padding:0">As a series of references, I would suggest David Parnas's famous paper on modularization, Butler Lampson's famous paper on layering in operating systems, and Herbert Simon's famous book: The Sciences of the Artificial. Also, Donald Schon's book entitled The Reflective Practitioner (which talks about the process of folks like engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc. in defining their field), and the well known book about building architecture "A Pattern Language" by Chris Alexander, who created the idea of "design patterns" that now has been adopted by software designers.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0">[Please note that this will not actually get delivered to the e2e list, as I am permanently blocked from posting there by Joe Touch]</p><div><div>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0"><br><br>On Monday, April 15, 2013 2:54pm, "John Day" <<a href="mailto:jeanjour@comcast.net" target="_blank">jeanjour@comcast.net</a>> said:<br><br></p>
<div>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0">> At 6:25 PM +0200 4/15/13, <a href="mailto:christian.tschudin@unibas.ch" target="_blank">christian.tschudin@unibas.ch</a> wrote:<br>> >With everbody talking about architectures in<br>
> >plural, your "style of construction" definition<br>> >could be misunderstood that net arch has more to<br>> >do with personal preferences or artistic trait<br>> >rather than science.<br>
> <br>> There are many methods of generating an<br>> architecture. The definition I quoted was of<br>> course referring to buildings, etc.<br>> <br>> My own approach has always been firmly rooted in<br>
> science as opposed to natural history.<br>> <br>> ><br>> >But the nice part is that it says: architecture<br>> >is here even if the engineer is not aware of it.<br>> <br>> Yes, I have referred to some as Karnack<br>
> architectures, but Johnny Carson has probably<br>> been gone too long for that to be meaningful.<br>> <br>> Take care,<br>> John<br>> <br>> ><br>> >Which is quite true for the Internet or SDN<br>
> >where we (still) try to understand what is going<br>> >on, and at which level:<br>> ><br>> > is it a masterplan (or meta-architecture, à la Hausmann's plan for<br>> Paris)?<br>> > is it a set of concepts (layering, e2e, CO/CL, globally unique addr)<br>
> > is it a set of mechanisms (TCP plus IP, OF)?<br>> ><br>> >The meta-architecture discussion is interesting:<br>> >why for example the Internet fails to be one,<br>> >that there aren't more radical approaches to<br>
> >this than AN, or whether a meta-arch at the end<br>> >is a set of mechanisms à la ANA, RNA or SDN.<br>> ><br>> >In 2009 I helped organize the <a href="http://netarch2009.net" target="_blank">netarch2009.net</a><br>
> >symposium, currently I'm pondering to have a<br>> >follow up event 5 years later. Writing this up<br>> >is just another way of saying: yes, we should.<br>> ><br>> >best, christian<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>> >On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, John Day wrote:<br>> ><br>> >>I basically use the dictionary definition of "a<br>> >>style of construction." The important<br>> >>distinction being between an architecture and<br>
> >>buildings built to that architecture. (I don't<br>> >>remember what dictionary I found that in. It<br>> >>was 30 years ago.)<br>> >><br>> >>I would say that 90% of the usage in the field<br>
> >>refers buildings, rather than *architectures.*<br>> >><br>> >>For example, the 7-layer OSI model is a building, not an architecture.<br>> >><br>> >>Take care,<br>> >>John<br>
> >><br>> >>At 4:35 PM -0400 4/14/13, Noel Chiappa wrote:<br>> >>> > From: Jon Crowcroft <<a href="mailto:jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>><br>
> >>><br>> >>> > architecure remains as hard as ever<br>> >>><br>> >>>I'm interested to know what 'architecture' means to you both; I know<br>> what<br>
> >>>_I_ mean by the term, but I'm not sure the<br>> >>>field as a whole has a consistent,<br>> >>>well-understood meaning, yet.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Noel<br>> <br>
></p>
</div></div></div></font></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>