OGB-001 book - TOGAF Business Architecture Part 1 Updated: 2024

Dear community,

As your trusted companion along the journey of constant learning and inspiration, we are very excited to share a new format by announcing our first book ever: The ArchDaily Guide to Good Architecture.

In partnership with renowned international publisher gestalten, we have taken a pause to look back on the more than 40,000 projects curated over the past 15 years, to distill their contributions and answer the bold question of what is good architecture. The sheer scale of ArchDaily is a reflection of how important architecture is today, as the deepening complexity of our world places increasing pressure and demands upon our built environment. To deal with issues such as the climate crisis, energy scarcity, population density, social inequality, housing shortages, fast-moving urbanization, diminished local identity, and a lack of diversity, architecture needs to open itself.

To answer this challenging question the book spotlights the most innovative built environments of our age—those paving the way for a better, more sustainable future. Centered around ArchDaily’s 10 principles of good architecture developed by our team, the book showcases a rich variety of projects—both built and planned—from a sunken restaurant with subterranean views to a Mediterranean cave transformed into a remarkable residence. Reflecting a global community of world-shapers, it celebrates the most visionary architects, and introduces bold new talent. It explores the key courses and trends redefining the built environment, marking the forefront of architectural thought and practice today, with an eye on tomorrow.

https://www.archdaily.com/987050/the-archdaily-guide-to-good-architecture-book-buy-gestaltenDavid Basulto

With Gaza still under heavy fire and much of the strip reduced to rubble, it may seem premature to ask how Gaza will be rebuilt. But architects, social scientists and others have long asked how Gazans can reclaim dignity and agency through the spaces they live in.

The 2021 book "Open Gaza” brings together environmentalists, planners and scholars from Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, the U.S., the UK, India and beyond to share their visions — some fanciful, many practical — to create a better place for Gazans and Palestinians.

“Open Gaza” focuses on architecture and design rather than rebuilding efforts, which have received billions of dollars in funding in the past. The book was edited by the late urban critic Michael Sorkin and geographer Deen Shariff Sharp, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and co-director of Terreform, Center for Advanced Urban Research.

“What if there was a context politically feasible to achieve in which Gazans were allowed to thrive, dream, and achieve their goals like any other urban context?” Shariff Sharp says.

Book excerpt: 'Open Gaza'

Edited by Michael Sorkin and Deen Sharp

Introduction

At the Fun Time beach caf. located on the Khan Younis seafront in Gaza, a small group of Palestinian men were watching the 2014 World Cup semifinal between the Netherlands and Argentina. Bilal al-Astal and the soccer fans gathered with him were not given the chance to find out which team would proceed to the global spectacle of the World Cup final. As al-Astal stated in his testimony to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem:

We watched the first half of
the match together. We drank
tea and coffee and there was
a relaxed mood. We didn’t hear
any airplanes nearby. Suddenly,
there was a loud explosion. By
the time I realized what was
happening, I found myself buried
under a pile of sand and dirt.

Such is the nature of daily life for Gazans: a schizophrenic rift between simple enjoyments that are routine for most of us and sudden eruptions of lethal violence from above. Urbanity instantaneously turns to terror. The Gaza Strip is one of the most beleaguered environments on earth. Crammed into a space of 139 square miles (360 square kilometers), 1.8 million people live under siege in conditions that continue to plummet to ever more unimaginable depths of degradation and despair. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge (OPE), the third major Israeli assault on Gaza in six years, brought destruction on a scale that shocked both residents and long-time observers. As Sara Roy, who has worked for over thirty years on and in Gaza, wrote shortly after the end of OPE: “I can say without hesitation that I have neverseen the kind of human, physical, and psychological destruction that I see there today.” OPE only accelerated the conclusions of an infamous UN report published in 2012 that questioned whether Gaza would still be a “livable place” by 2020.

The violence unleashed by Israel during OPE provided the impetus for Terreform to think about the sorts of productive interventions that might result from bringing together an eclectic group of designers, environmentalists, planners, activists, and scholars—from Palestine and Israel, the US, the UK, India, and elsewhere. Our aim was not simply to denounce or “deconstruct” the literal deconstruction of Gaza by remorseless bombing and blockade, but to imagine and celebrate the spaces of steadfastness and even hope. As firm believers in the “right to the city,” we approach Gaza not for its scenographic horror but always as authentically urban, in defense of what we see as a critical avenue of resistance: imagining a better place for its citizens, one in which gathering in a café or taking a dip in the sea no longer brings the constant threat of sudden death.

We are not Panglossian, naively optimistic, and this volume firmly rejects the immiserization of Gazans. It does so by insisting on the particularity of alternatives, by seeing Gazans as people filled with aspiration, not as statistics—subjects to be destroyed—or the numbed inhabitants of a completely bare life. Gaza and Palestine are more than occupied territories under siege, and existence there is not defined solely by Israeli domination. The projects and essays in this volume engage Gaza beyond the malign logic of bombing and blockade. They consider how life could be improved in Gaza within the limitations imposed by Israeli malevolence but also reach beyond this framework of endless war to imagine Gaza in a future without conflict.

While the Israeli siege aspires to control the minutest details of Gazans’ everyday lives, down to the toothpaste they can or cannot use, the people of Gaza still dream, fantasize, and live in ways that lie outside the coercive and seemingly overwhelming logics of the Israel- Palestine conflict. As Atef Abu Saif writes in his diary, even in the context of a mere twelve-hour truce during OPE, city life quickly returned to the streets and people went about their daily lives: “People in their thousands on the street, buying food, moving from one place to another; the shops open, kids playing in the streets. It is a city that has poured itself out into a few moments of peace.”

The cover of this book articulates our intent, as editors, to both illuminate the Israeli siege and thwart its imposed logic. It shows a member of the Parkour group in Gaza founded by Mohammed Aljakhabir and Ahmad Matar in 2007 in the Khan Younis refugee camp. Parkour has provided an important set of practices through which Gazan youth can escape the oppression of the occupation. Parkour is, Matar has said, “the only thing that I could do, and the only thing that helped me to keep hope that the future is coming, and that something will happen for me . . . For us in Gaza, we practiced Parkour to feel our freedom. Because it’s the sport that we can fly, we can jump over the obstacles, there is nothing [that] can stop us.” Open Gaza illuminates the incredible energy and ingenuity of the inhabitants of Gaza that is being so brutally stultified by the Israeli occupation. But it is also important to stress that both Aljakhabir and Matar have escaped the occupation, with many other members of the Parkour movement, by leaving Gaza. The cover of this book also marks the simultaneous presence of hope and its absence, or what the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish called the “presence of absence.”

Open Gaza reassembles many members of a cohort that contributed to two earlier volumes: The Next Jerusalem: Sharing the Divided City (2002) and Against the Wall (2005). Although these books track a rapid descent from the myopic optimism that followed the Oslo agreement to the agenda of repression and apartheid concealed behind its false promise, both— like the present volume—engage authors from inside the space of conflict and from outside. These assemblies of Palestinians, Israelis, and “others” have sought to upend the representation of Palestinians, so often obscured through the lenses of colonialism and its attendant Orientalism. These books offered not simply a riposte to mainstream depictions and analysis, but also progressive visions of a shared and open future for Palestinians and Israelis.

Copyright © 2021 Terreform. This edition is co-published by the American University in Cairo Press and Terreform. 

'This is a pathbreaking transnational history of the architecture of internment of the Pacific War. In this theoretically informed and richly empirical study, Anoma Pieris and Lynne Horiuchi open up new interdisciplinary perspectives for us to think about how architecture mediates complex, intersectional expressions of sovereignty.'

Jiat-Hwee Chang - National University of Singapore

'The Architecture of Confinement is a ground-breaking study of war-time built environments. It examines with erudition and complexity the legacy of rural concentration camps of the Pacific War. A pioneering work, it illuminates how a comparative and temporal approach can transform understandings of race, colonialism and imperial politics in war and beyond.'

Joy Damousi - Australian Catholic University

'This is an ambitious transnational study of the built environments of mass confinement in World War II that bring together studies of confinement sites in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Singapore. It is magnificently eye-opening and informative.'

Greg Robinson - Université du Québec à Montréal

• By Dave Emerson
• Cover Story

Summary

A detailed look at O-PAS™ Standard, Version 1.0

By Dave Emerson

Process automation end users and suppliers have expressed interest in a standard that will make the industry much more open and modular. In response, the Open Process Automation™ Forum (OPAF) has worked diligently at this task since November 2016 to develop process automation standards. The scope of the initiative is wide-reaching, as it aims to address the issues associated with the process automation systems found in most industrial automation plants and facilities today (figure 1).

It is easy to see why a variety of end users and suppliers are involved in the project, because the following systems are affected:

• manufacturing execution system (MES)
• distributed control system (DCS)
• human-machine interface (HMI)
• programmable logic controller (PLC)
• input/output (I/O)

In June 2018, OPAF released a technical reference model (TRM) snapshot as industry guidance of the technical direction being taken for the development of this new standard. The organization followed the TRM snapshot with the release of the OPAS™ Version 1.0 in January 2019. Version 1.0 addresses the interoperability of components in federated process automation systems. This is a first stop along a three-year road map with annual releases targeting the themes listed in table 1.

Table 1. The O-PAS Standard three-year release road map addresses progressively more detailed themes.

By publishing versions of the standard annually, OPAF intends to make its work available to industry expeditiously. This will allow suppliers to start building products and returning feedback on technical issues, and this feedback-along with end user input-will steer OPAS development. O-PAS Version 1.0 was released as a preliminary standard of The Open Group to allow time for industry feedback.

The OPAF interoperability workshop in May 2019 is expected to produce feedback to help finalize the standard. The workshop allows member organizations to bring hardware and software that support O-PAS Version 1.0, testing it to verify the correctness and clarity of this preliminary standard. The results will not be published but will be used to update and finalize the standard.

Figure 1. A broad sampling of suppliers and end users are highly interested in the scope of the OPAS under development by OPAF, because it touches on all the key components of industrial automation systems: hardware (I/O), the communication network, system software (e.g., run time, namespace), application software, and the data model. 

Some terminology

For clarity, a summary of the terminology associated with the OPAF initiative is:

• The Open Group: The Open Group is a global consortium that helps organizations achieve business objectives through technology standards. The membership of more than 625 organizations includes customers, systems and solutions suppliers, tool vendors, integrators, academics, and consultants across multiple industries.
• Open Process Automation Forum: OPAF is an international forum of end users, system integrators, suppliers, academia, and other standards organizations working together to develop a standards-based, open, secure, and interoperable process control architecture. Open Process Automation is a trademark of The Open Group.
• O-PAS Standard, Version 1.0 (O-PAS): OPAF is producing the OPAS Standard under the guidance of The Open Group to define a vendor-neutral reference architecture for construction of scalable, reliable, interoperable, and secure process automation systems.

Standard of standards

Creating a "standard of standards" for open, interoperable, and secure automation is a complex undertaking. OPAF intends to speed up the process by leveraging the valuable work of various groups in a confederated manner.

The OPAS Standard will reference existing and applicable standards where possible. Where gaps are identified, OPAF will work with associated organizations to update the underlying standard or add OPAS requirements to achieve proper definition. Therefore, OPAF has already established liaison agreements with the following organizations:

• Control System Integrators Association (CSIA)
• Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), specifically for the Redfish API
• FieldComm Group
• Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC)
• International Society of Automation (ISA)
• NAMUR
• OPC Foundation
• PLCopen
• ZVEI

Additionally, OPAF is in discussions with AutomationML and the ISA Security Compliance Institute (ISCI) as an ISA/IEC 62443 validation authority. In addition to these groups, the OPC Foundation has joined OPAF as a member, so no liaison agreement is required.

As an example of this cooperation in practice, OPAS Version 1.0 was created with significant input from three existing standards, including:

• ISA/IEC 62443 (adopted by IEC as IEC 62443) for security
• OPC UA adopted by IEC as IEC 62541 for connectivity
• DMTF Redfish for systems management (see www.dmtf.org/standards/redfish)

Next step: Configuration portability

Configuration portability, now under development for OPAS Version 2.0, will address the requirement to move control strategies among different automation components and systems. This has been identified by end users as a requirement to allow their intellectual property (IP), in the form of control strategies, to be portable. Existing standards under evaluation for use in Version 2.0 include:

• IEC 61131-3 for control functions
• IEC 16499 for execution coordination
• IEC 61804 for function blocks

O-PAS Version 3.0 will address application portability, which is the ability to take applications purchased from software suppliers and move them among systems within a company in accordance with applicable licenses. This release will also include the first specifications for hardware interfaces.

Under the OPAS hood

The five parts that make up O-PAS Version 1.0 are listed below with a brief summary of how compliance will be Checked (if applicable):

• Part 1 — Technical Architecture Overview (informative)
• Part 2 — Security (informative)
• Part 3 — Profiles
• Part 4 — Connectivity Framework (OCF)
• Part 5 — System Management

Part 1 - Technical Architecture Overview (informative) describes an OPAS-conformant system through a set of interfaces to the components. Read this section to understand the technical approach OPAF is following to create the O-PAS.

Part 2 - Security (informative) addresses the necessary cybersecurity functionality of components that are conformant to OPAS. It is important to point out that security is built into the standard and permeates it, as opposed to being bolted on as an afterthought. This part of the standard is an explanation of the security principles and guidelines that are built into the interfaces. More specific security requirements are detailed in normative parts of the standards. The detailed normative interface specifications are defined in Parts 3, 4, and 5. These parts also contain the associated conformance criteria.

Part 3 - Profiles  defines sets of hardware and software interfaces for which OPAF will develop conformance tests to make sure products interoperate properly. The O-PAS Version 1 profiles are:

• Level 1 Interoperability Hardware Profile: A certified product claiming conformance to this profile shall implement OSM-Redfish.
• Level 2 Interoperability Hardware Profile: A certified product claiming conformance to this profile shall implement OSM-Redfish BMC.
• Level 1 Interoperability Software Profile: Software claiming conformance to this profile shall implement OCF-001: OPC UA Client/Server Profile.
• Level 2 Interoperability Software Profile: Software claiming conformance to this profile shall implement OCF-002: OPC UA Client/Server and Pub/Sub Profile.

The term "Level" in the profile names refers to profile levels.

Part 4 - Connectivity Framework (OCF) forms the interoperable core of the system. The OCF is more than just a network, it is the underlying structure allowing disparate components to interoperate as a system. The OCF will use OPC UA for OPAS Versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.

Part 5 - System Management covers foundational functionality and interface standards to allow the management and monitoring of components using a common interface. This part will address hardware, operating systems and platform software, applications, and networks-although at this point Version 1.0 only addresses hardware management.

Conformance criteria are identified by the verb "shall" within the O-PAS text. An OPAF committee is working on a conformance guide document that will be published later this year, which explains the conformance program and requirements for suppliers to obtain a certification of conformance.

Technical architecture

The OPAS Standard supports communication interactions that are required within a service-oriented architecture (SOA) for automation systems by outlining the specific interfaces the hardware and software components will use. These components will be used to architect, build, and start up automation systems for end users.

The vision for the OPAS Standard is to allow the interfaces to be used in an unlimited number of architectures, thereby enabling each process automation system to be "fit for purpose" to meet specific objectives. The standard will not define a system architecture, but it will use examples to illustrate how the component-level interfaces are intended to be used. System architectures (figure 2) contain the following elements:

Distributed control node (DCN): A DCN is expected to be a microprocessor-based controller, I/O, or gateway device that can handle inputs and outputs and computing functions. A key feature of O-PAS is that hardware and control software are decoupled. So, the exact function of any single DCN is up to the system architect. A DCN consists of hardware and some system software that enables the DCN to communicate on the O-PAS network, called the OCF, and also allows it to run control software.

Distributed control platform (DCP): A DCP is the hardware and standard software interfaces required in all DCNs. The standard software interfaces are a common platform on top of which control software programs run. This provides the physical infrastructure and interchangeability capability so end users can control software and hardware from multiple suppliers.

Distributed control framework (DCF): A DCF is the standard set of software interfaces that provides an environment for executing applications, such as control software. The DCF is a layer on top of the DCP that provides applications with a consistent set of O-PAS related functions no matter which DCN they run in. This is important for creating an efficient marketplace for O-PAS applications.

OPAS connectivity framework (OCF): The OCF is a royalty-free, secure, and interoperable communication framework specification. In O-PAS Version 1, the OCF uses OPC UA.

Advanced computing platform (ACP): An ACP is a computing platform that implements DCN functionality but has scalable computing resources (memory, disk, CPU cores) to handle applications or services that require more resources than are typically available on a small profile DCP. ACPs may also be used for applications that cannot be easily or efficiently distributed. ACPs are envisioned to be installed within on-premise servers or clouds.

Within the OPAS Standard, DCNs represent a fundamental computing building block (figure 3). They may be hardware or virtual (when virtual they are shown as a DCF as in figure 2), big or small, with no I/O or various amounts. At the moment, allowable I/O density per DCN is not settled, so some standardization in conjunction with the market may drive the final configuration.

DCNs also act as a gateway to other networks or systems, such as legacy systems, wireless gateways, digital field networks, I/O, and controllers like DCS or PLC systems. Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) devices can also be accessed via any of these systems.

Figure 2. OPAS establishes a system architecture organizing process automation elements into interoperable groupings.

Building a system

End users today must work with and integrate multiple systems in most every process plant or facility. Therefore, the OPAS Standard was designed so users can construct systems from components and subsystems supplied by multiple vendors, without requiring custom integration. With the OPAS Standard it becomes feasible to assimilate multiple systems, enabling them to work together as one OPAS-compliant whole. This reduces work on capital projects and during the lifetime of the facility or plant, leading to a lower total cost of ownership.

By decoupling hardware and software and employing an SOA, the necessary software functions can be situated in many different locations or processors. Not only can software applications run in all hardware, but they can also access any I/O to increase flexibility when designing a system.

One set of components can be used to create many different systems using centralized architectures, distributed architectures, or a hybrid of the two. System sizes may range from small to large and can include best-in-class elements of DCS, PLC, SCADA, and IIoT systems and devices as needed.

Information technology (IT) can also be incorporated deeper into industrial automation operational technology (OT). For example, DMTF Redfish is an IT technology for securely managing data center platforms. OPAF is adopting this technology to meet OPAS system management requirements.

Comprehensive and open

Each industrial automation provider offers a variety of devices and systems, most of which are proprietary and incompatible with similar products from other vendors and sometimes with earlier versions of their own products. End users and system integrators trying to integrate automation systems of varying vintages from different suppliers therefore have a challenging job.

To address these issues, OPAF is making great strides toward assembling a comprehensive, open process automation standard. Partially built on other established industry standards, and extending to incorporate most aspects of industrial automation, the O-PAS Standard will greatly Improve interoperability among industrial automation systems and components. This will lower implementation and support costs for end users, while allowing vendors to innovate around an open standard.

For more information on OPAS Version 1.0, please obtain the standard at https://publications.opengroup.org/p190. Submit feedback by emailing ogspecs@opengroup.org. 

Figure 3. DCNs are conceived as modular elements containing DCP (hardware) and DCF (software), both of which are used to interface field devices to the OCF.

Yeoryia Manolopoulou, University College London

Awards RIBA President's Awards for Research 2020
Category Design and Technical

This project draws on research in chance-aided design, expanding the field of inquiry from the individual to the collective. It focuses on the complex cognitive and productive possibilities that emerge within a group of designers who welcome plurality and performance in their practice via the use of an architectural score. Scores use textual, pictorial or numeric notations to describe and structure a process that occurs over time. Whilst linear scores specify an ordered sequence of events, open scores are less-hierarchical and can allow participants to invent and adapt the units and relations of an ensemble temporally and spatially. What is the creative and social potential of the score in architectural practice and pedagogy? Through an examination of an architectural score and workshop that I developed for the Université du Québec à Montréal, named Lattice, and an exploration of the ideas underpinning it, I will show that one of the advantages of open scoring in architecture is the way in which it encourages both autonomy and collaboration, increasing the range of ideas, experiences and opportunities available to designers. The work invents and proposes a pedagogic method that grounds design on a condition of social experience and shared authorship. By foregrounding the process rather than the outcome in architectural design; by opening up this process to a social embodiment of time between actors, materials and tools; and by deliberately acknowledging its production within a collective, open scoring in architecture has the capacity to fundamentally change the ways in which architecture is taught and practiced as a social activity and understood as a social artefact.

Let’s talk. Good communication is key to building and maintaining working relationships, be they personal, romantic, business, or geopolitical. The importance of communication with and respect for one’s neighbors is a lesson that has featured heavily in many texts and teachings from all religions and cultures for millennia, possibly sparking civilization itself. 

Some of the fastest growing economies are desparate to shout from their garden rooftops about their growing environmentalism, infrastructure, attractive investment opportunities, and rising architectural scene, but also to keep alive the history and culture of their past, and build socially active environments.

These four building projects from across East Asia and Europe both visually and symbolically invite guests inside to see how they operate, building positive relationships with residents of the building and the city, and visitors from beyond.

https://www.archdaily.com/1001509/when-mixed-use-architecture-uses-open-facades-to-make-friendsJames Wormald

A joint statement on Monday from the leaders of the six nations, including the U.S. President, George W. Bush, said the genetic map "provides us with the fundamental platform for understanding ourselves from which revolutionary progress will be made in biomedical sciences and in the health and welfare of humankind". The group, along with a competing private effort, completed a rough draft of the genome in 2000, but the draft included thousands of gaps in the long sequence of DNA base pairs. However all but 400 of those gaps have been closed now.

Advertisement

American agencies and universities, led by the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Department of Energy, completed the project at a cost of about $2.7 billions, some $300 millions less and two years earlier than the original estimate. The U.S. did about half of the DNA sequencing, and some of the money budgeted for the human project was spent on sequencing other organisms, such as the mouse, and on associated technologies. Researchers now will use the sequences to try to speed identification of genes that cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other disorders and then to develop drugs that either prevent or treat the disorders.