I have no claim in calling the site the "Art" of Integration. I have no pretentions. I even initially refrained a lot to name it "Art" because of the misconceptions it may lead to: think about the expression state of the art. But I don't want to mean that this site is "state of the art". However, a significant number of reasons added up to make "Art" the single possible word to use.

What is an "Art"? The Encyclopedia Britanica says "An object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination" and on Meriam-Webster we find:

I must admit that all these definitions apply here and none suggests that a superior quality of the "art"works is a implied or required.

Dada artist Marcel Duchamp alleged that it is enough for an artist to deem something "art" and put it in a publicly accepted venue. In other words, no third party judgment of your works is required to be declared "art" if you decide to say so and—I would add—if it complies with some above definitions—which is the case. Yet I feel the definition is incomplete if you don't pay something for your freedom of naming your own stuff "Art": may be an implicit call for critical review, and commitment to acknowledge the outcome.

Easily stated, integration is an art if we oppose it to a science: Integration currently lacks the rigour of a science* and is only dealing with artifacts, i.e. pure human inventions (protocols, processes, data formats, coding, etc.). Nothing about interconnected computers is driven by Nature (but time). In other words, we just deal with what we have created and had we created them in different ways, we would deal with them in different ways too. This "freedom of creation" is to my conception another feature of "Art". ( *: although some works like the Architecture Patterns of M Fowler and the following Integration Patterns of G Hohpe verge on the axiomatic beauty of mathematics)

We can as well debate over the distinction between an "art" and a "craft". Indeed, the good execution of integration projects requires "craft", i.e. skills and dexterity. However this site is less concerned by execution than by design, structure and plans, in other words, constructs that assimilate to an act of "creation"—hence falling on the side of "art".

We often forget how many and much unverified postulates we do explicitly and implicitly about Integration and then how we start building over it layers and layers of deduction. What is driving us in this process seems to call on our senses for the beauty of our constructs as well as some commercial malice. If I dare say, what I can hear and read on SOA provides a perfect recent illustration, nonetheless not isolated. Both beauty and commercial desire have been shaping "Arts" throughout history.

The essays of E.W. Dijkstra on the , on the , his , or his later note on are so much transposable to the current state of Integration. They altogether fuel the overwhelming sentiment that we still know very little about what we do and how we do it, and that beauty and elegance are possibly remaining valid guides in the pursuit of simplicity and quality through the (Integration) mess that we have created (to quote his words again).

However, I was terrified at the risk of suggesting any comparison with "The Art of Computer Programming", of D.E.Knuth which - paradoxically - could have been called Science of Computer Programming, for he stands on equal grounds with Einstein, Dirac, Mandelbrot and others. Please, there is no comparison: my own is little insignificant nothing void countless stuff with regard to this lifetime masterpiece of D.E.Knuth.

Words of Shari Lawrence Pfleeger in her article on "What Software Engineering can learn from Soccer" in IEEE Software (Dec.2002) finally reconciled me with the idea that "Art" was the right word to use. She speaks about instinct and expertise: Instinctual expertise is hard to develop and difficult to trust. [...] Modeling and abstraction are key elements in quality improvement, and we want those skills to become instinctual. [...] Unless we take the time to analyse and abstract and to build our lessons learned into skill-, rule-, and knowledge-based expertise, we will never have the mental and technical tools to keep from "making a mess of it". (She is too!)

Conveniently enough, I also wanted to : "Art" and "Business" do make the letters A and B so much used in statements alike; "A is exchanging data with B..."

So, it is entirely up to you to judge whether I'm a good or a bad "art"ist and I will accept it.

[www.artofe.biz] © 2005 bernard Hauzeur • All rights reserved.