Talk:Zachman Framework/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Incomplete

Need commas!

This article is incomplete. Especially important is to note that the framework table is only half completed. The full Zcahman framework includes 6 columns not 3. the columns represent the six questions what?(resources), How?(Functions), where?(networks), who?(organizations), when?(Timings or cycles), why?(motivations) The rows look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.180.61 (talk • contribs) 18 October 2005.

The other thing that this article fails to point out is that the Zachman framework does NOT have mention any way that the artefacts can be represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.33.204 (talk • contribs) 24 December 2005

I've edited the framework table to include the missing columns and to more accurately reflect the content on Zachman's website. I'm not certain, but I think the 3 column version that was up here is actually the abbreviated Zachman derived framework used in FEAF, not the actual Zachman framework. BobMcCormick 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can we include a picture of the framework? The article mentions that it is in the public domain (otherwise is it a fair use?). Mahanchian 22:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Openning

The opening does not mention anything about enterprise architecture! The complete name is "Zachman's framework for enterprise architecture". Mahanchian 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrap Around

Do the cells wrap-around. Does information in the cells on the far left need to be related to the information in the cells on the far right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian48 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2006

BP Architects Blue Book

Is it "BP Architects Blue Book", or "BfP Architects Blue book"?

I ask as this was changed by a known vandal IP, both are redlinks and "Business f.... Process" sounds more logical for this process than British Petroleum having something to do with it. --Brianmc (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Source

This article is tagged for not citing sources. I included a source for the Zachman Framework diagram (www.ZIFA.com) but Ronz has deleted it saying it was spam or promotional material.

I don't understand.

Phogg2 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page, this report, WP:RS, and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: I have checked my user talk and there is nothing there about this. My point was that the Zachman framework article has been tagged for, among other things, lacking sources. The Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement (ZIFA) is a source for the Zachman Framework diagram in the artcle. It isn't spam.

Phogg2 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me:

--Ronz (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spamming aside, have you read WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:V? --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: Just because I have tried to provide a link to the ZIFA site several times doesn't make it spam. It is simply a legitimate source of information about the Zachman Framework.

Yes, I have read WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:V - and I fail to see how the reference to ZIFA contravenes any Wikipedia policies.

Phogg2 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to verify the information in the article from the link you provided, so it fails WP:V. Further, being just a link to an organization's main website, it fails WP:EL as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: To quote from WP: V, "Verifiabe in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The Zachman Insttitute for Framework Advancement (ZIFA) was co-founded by John Zachman. He remains its Chief Executive Officer. What would it take to convince you that the link to ZIFA is a reliable, verifiable, source?

To quote from WP: EL, "Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant ...", the ZIFA website is an authoritative source of information about the Zachman Framework. It is a most relevant link as a source to be cited in a Wikipedia article about the Zachman Framework.

Phogg2 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what is meant by "source". I've asked for help here as I don't have time for this. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz:

OK. Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of "source." I thought it meant an authoritative reference for something. If I were writing an academic paper on the Zachman Framework and used the diagram that appears in the Wikipedia article on the Zachman Framework, I would footnote a reference to www.ZIFA.com as a source for the diagram.

What is the Wikipedia meaning of "source"?

Phogg2 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had time for this, so my apologies for a very brief response: Please read WP:V, WP:EL, and WP:RS carefully. A link to a website is not a source for something that is on some unidentified page on that website. A link to the actual page is a source, but there are still the question of whether or not the page is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The article so far just gives the point of view of the Zachman company about the importance of the Zachman Framework. Wikipedia likes to report on what other published sources have said about each topic of interest. If we only quote Zachman, then we have no idea whether his approach is very important or is generally ignored by others who work in the same field. If Z's work has made an impact in the world, surely it would be covered by newspapers or magazines that are independent of Zachman. These mentions should be added to the reference list. The tags currently on the article are drawing attention to this problem.

Calling Z's approach a 'de facto world standard' is a very strong claim, and needs equally strong backup from independent sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed:

I agree with your comments. Personally, I think the article needs a great deal of improvement, and I might have a stab at re-writing it - including providing the independent references it should have.

The previous issue about sources was over one thing - the source of the Zachman Framework diagram. ZIFA is a commonly used source for it whenever it is used in papers and reports.

Phogg2 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

I have started to re-write this article. So far I have changed the introduction. Any and all comments/suggestions most welcome.

I'll get to the rest as time permits.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Two minor suggestions:

It might be useful to continue discussing sources here on this talk page
Don't worry too much about the WP:LEAD section, since it should reflect the article as a whole. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent third-party commentary on the Zachman framework

The Open Group publishes something called The Open Group Architecture Framework. A version of their document is available as a published book from Amazon:

The Open Group Architectural Framework 2007 Edition (Incorporating 8.1.1) (English version) (Paperback)

Van Haren Publishing, ISBN 9087530943

In the Amazon listing, a 'search this book' feature is provided, and I looked through it for mentions of 'Zachman'. I thought the book might be worth looking at because the TOGAF document (in the online version) is used as the source for the claim that Zachman's framework is the the 'de facto world standard for expressing the basic elements of enterprise architecture.[2]' (the actual quote is: "..has become a de facto standard for classifying the artifacts developed in enterprise architecture". What I found in the book version of The Open Group Architectural Framework appears less complimentary to Zachman:

-page 19: "It [TOGAF] may be used in conjunction with the well-known Zachman Framework, which is an excellent classification scheme, but lacks an openly-available, well-defined methodology."

-page 12: "Although a number of enterprise frameworks exist, there is no accepted industry standard method for developing an enterprise architecture. The goal of The Open Group with TOGAF is to work towards making the TOGAF ADM just such an industry standard method, wich is neutral towards tools and technologies, and can be used for developing the products associated with any recognized enterprise framework -- such as the Zachman Framework, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF), and C4ISR/DoD Framework -- that the architect feels is appropriate for a particular architecture."

-page 28: "John Zachman advocates developing enterprise-wide architecture at an enormous level of detail, in the same way as an aerospace company needs blueprints for everything down to nuts and bolts. Some regard this as an extreme position in terms of vertical scope, but it can certainly be justified when compared with the lifetime costs of alternatives. Zachman's argument is that information systems are not special. In other industries where very expensive, complex things are built, and where there is an expectation of repair or change, models are kept at an enormous level of detail, with concurrent expense."

-Later search results from the book could also be looked at (I stopped there).

As an other idea for getting comments about the Zachman Framework, I came across the name of George Brundage. He is an expert on enterprise architecture who is quoted a lot on the web and in publications, who has done a lot of work for the US government. (Google might find him commenting on Zachman somewhere).

George Brundage is identified at http://www.fcw.com/print/8_43/news/77888-1.html as the chief enterprise architect at the Treasury Department. The same online article discusses the Federal Enterprise Architecture. There is a book called "A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture". (A Google search for 'George Brundage architecture' finds relevant many hits). The Zachman Framework may have been considered for use by the United States government, and I bet someone could track that down. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed: Thanks for your input. I selected the TOGAF reference for the "de facto" standard claim because the source has more credibility than a lot of other sites. Although it isn't a direct quote, I think the meaning of the two statements is essentially the same.

I think the wording in the TOGAF book that the Zachman Framework "... lacks an openly-available, well-defined methodology ..." is perhaps not the best choice of words. In a way it implies that it might include a methodology that is not openly-available and is not well-defined. As I am sure you know, the Zachman Framework is only a classification schema for models, and its author never intended for it to include any methodology. I think it would have been better had the TOGAF reference stated it that way rather than in the way that appears to be less than complimentary.

Thanks for the other suggestions. I will no doubt come back to them.

24.36.26.36 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Phogg2 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope that if you work further on this you'll make an effort to write a balanced article, that fairly reflects the criticisms of the ZF that have been expressed. If the article is entirely promotional of the ZF, it runs the risk of being speedy deleted under our {{db-spam}} criterion. The wording of that criterion is Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed: I am struggling a bit with the notion of including criticisms (or praises) of the Zachman Framework because to me all of the criticisms I have come across are due to misunderstandings about its purpose, i.e., people thinking it is an enterprise architecture methodology. I intend to include something to this affect.

My aim is to write an objective explanation of the topic along the lines of the Periodic Table.

Phogg2 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's duty for us to provide our own judgment on the value of the Zachman Framework. We simply need to reflect what reliable sources have written on the topic. That's why it made me nervous when you seemed to be questioning the choice of words used in the TOGAF document. For us, those words are the raw data that we should faithfully reflect. To claim that TOGAF misunderstood Zachman would be original research, unless we find some other authority to say that TOGAF misunderstood it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

Going on at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TOGAF Reference

TOGAF is not a reliable source for Zachman Framework information. Their published information was never reviewed by anyone that is certified to speak about the Zachman Framework. Their mapping of TOGAF into the Zachman Framework is totally inaccurate. Self certification of Zachman Framework expertise by TOGAF personnel is not an appropriate criteria. This entry is strictly there to divert people to a competitive environment.

Tom Corn (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, I believe the source meets WP:V. Others do as well. I have WP:NPOV concerns with not having other, independent sources, but this applies to almost the entire article as well. Perhaps this should be taken to WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no case for removing the TOGAF reference. It is a published book, issued under the auspices of a large well-respected professional society, and it is relevant to this topic. We are allowed to use published work of all kinds to evaluate the signficance of the Zachman Framework. Asking us to remove true material from an article to protect Tom Corn's business interests would be a pretty clear violation of our Conflict of Interest rules. If he thinks TOGAF was mistaken in what they said, let him provide reliable sources that address that topic. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom: I was the one who originally cited the TOGAF reference. I assure you my motivation was not to divert people to another competitive environment; it was just to provide a notable, third-party source for the oft-heard statement about the Zachman Framework being a de facto world standard for classifying descriptive representations of enterprises. I have problems with TOGAF's mapping into the Zachman Framework as well, but that is another issue. --Phogg2 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of the Zachman Framework needs a Fair Use Rationale

The large Zachman chart that Phogg2 added to the article is scheduled to be deleted on 24 February unless a Fair Use Rationale is provided. (Note the Zachman copyright notice clearly visible at the bottom of the chart). I'm not sure that such a rationale is possible. It would be better to have the chart released for our use under WP:GFDL, if that can be arranged. Phogg2, do you have any ideas on how to do that? You would need to get the permission of John Zachman since he is the owner of the image. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What form of permission from Zachman would be deemed acceptable by Wiki policies? I'll see if I can get hold of John, but that typically takes a couple of weeks since he travels a tremendous amount. The last I knew, he is not a user of modern inventions such as email & the web. DEddy (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can get John Zachman's approval to release the image under GFDL, check the advice at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Unfortunately the procedure is a bit bureaucratic. If John Z doesn't use email, can he dictate his wishes to someone who does use email, who has an email address connected to his organization? (presumably xxxx@zifa.com). Then follow the steps indicated on the above permissions page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed: John uses e-mail, and I'm sure he will give his permission. I will check into it. --Phogg2 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed: I have notified John of the requirement for him to provide permission for Wikipedia to retain the picture in the article, including the statement about the license, etc. I have also learned that he is in India until March 4, so I don't know if he will be able to respond by February 24. Could we get an extension on the deadline? --Phogg2 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we will be able to sort this out. Since Phogg2 took the photo of the Zachman Diagram we are discussing, I followed up over at User talk:Phogg2. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just heard back from John Zachman. Due to the recent edit disputes he is reluctant to grant outright approval to use the picture in Wikipedia at this time, unfortunately. I think I will make a basic picture of the framework, less the cell details, citing the Zachman International website as the source with an indication that cell details may be viewed there. --Phogg2 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

POV rewrite

In support of Phogg2, I do believe that the Zachmann framework can pass the bar of notability. The challenge is finding the sources that are still in print to extract useful quotes. I've been hearing about Zachmann from various sources for many years. I will add some references that I am able to find, but many more will be available. This is just the grunt work of making the notations visible.

That said, I agree that we should not be interpreting the statements made by others... not in an encyclopedia. I will make an attempt at scrubbing out some of the point of view details, as best I can.--Nickmalik (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds useful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the bar for removing the tags for notability and npov? I don't want to remove them myself, preferring an admin or reviewer to do that. Nickmalik (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find out from the edit history who placed the tag originally. While that person doesn't have the final say, asking them may lead to a useful discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: I have added two more references. Are there any more statements that you can see that need a reference? --Phogg2 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I acknowledge that "taxonomy" is a very popular label these days. I can't remember John ever referring to his FRAMEWORK as a taxonomy. Is describing the framework as a taxonomy in the first line appropriate? DEddy (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

John refers to the framework as a "classification schema," which is, in essence, a taxonomy, is it not? Roger Sessions explains his rationale for calling it a taxonomy at http://www.objectwatch.com/whitepapers/4EAComparison.pdf --Phogg2 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not comfortable labeling the framework a taxonomy. I know the concept of taxonomies is very popular for the inherent appeal of order, but applications portfolios are chaotic, not orderly. It feels like over selling to me. DEddy (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who inserted "taxonomy" into the article, but, after thinking about it, I think it fits. DEddy's point about application portfolios is well taken. In fact, all of the components of most enterprises, not only their applications, may be described as "chaotic" because they haven't been engineered from architected building blocks (i.e., primitive models in John's parlance). It is the discipline of taxonomy (classification) that brings order to the chaos. --Phogg2 (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the word taxonomy. Industry expert Roger Sessions, and others, used the word 'taxonomy' to describe ZF, and the previous definition is the one put out by John Zachman himself, and therefore was a bit too self-referential to be considered a neutral point of view. That said, many other author have used the term 'taxonomy' to refer to Zachman's work over the years. It is not a matter of what is 'popular,' but rather a recognition of the changes in this field in the 20 years since John's original article.

EA has gone from a good idea to strategically essential. Along the way, it picked up methods, processes, scenarios, roles, responsibilities, terminology, and ontologies. The place where John Zachman started still stands as a shinging example of organization, and it should be recognized as such, but it is was the seed, not the tree.

In short, if we look at how the industry term 'EA Framework' has changed over the years, it is the gradual change in the meaning of that term, not in John's work, that requires us to find a better word to describe the seed that John planted. Given that I checked a number of sources, and most used the term 'taxonomy' or something similar to it (as referenced), I stand by the use of the word 'taxonomy' to describe the ZF. Nickmalik (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take my silence as acceptance. The use of the word "taxonomy" implies order where there is (close to) none. Mother Nature has had a few tens of millions of years to construct Her order... we've only been throwing systems together for a few decades. DEddy (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing with Mother Nature is that she has been orderly and well structured all along. We only began to understand her order, however, when Linnaeus gave us a taxonomy for doing so. I agree that implemented enterprises are chaotic. That's because they are man-made and haven't been built from architecture, unlike buildings, etc. If we agree that enterprises can and should be architected, one of the first things we need is a commonly accepted taxonomy for the elements that comprise them. Don't we? --Phogg2 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In theory yes. In reality no.

A major stumbling block is such efforts instinctively want to have ONE set of language for the enterprise ("Let's get everybody on the same page."). One aspect of this particular facet of windmill tilting is that some data bigot decrees there will be ONE standard name for things across the organization. Never going to happen. Whereas Mother Nature provides us with a wonderful hierarchy of grandparent-parent-child (and human language to eloquently describe all the nuances surrounding such sensible relationships) the way organizations are "assembled" (along with supporting information systems) just does not have anything resembling organized language.

Example: I first learned OSS to mean the WWII intelligence agency... and today it means open source software (plus 64 additional meanings). How will taxonomies cope with that?

A core problem with "organized" taxonomies is that your order is my nonsense. While System A might have a wonderful taxonomy, System B's taxonomy will be different DEddy (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If everyone created their own taxonomies for everything then we would have the proverbial Tower of Babel, and you would be right about my order being your nonsense. But I think we are straying off topic a little. A taxonomy organizes elements of a group into subgroups that are mutually exclusive, unambiguous, and, when taken together, include all possibilities. That to me is what the Zachman Framework does for enterprise models. Phogg2 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My objection to taxonomies is that they heavily lean to top-down models of what people THINK is going on in systems. But such efforts tend to get down to 80,000 feet & think they're drowning in details. Serious details start 10' underground & work upwards. Point-in-fact is that neither top-down nor bottom-up are worth much unless they meet in the middle. It's a tough challenge.

Here's a comment on the Zachman process http://www.tdan.com/view-articles/6123 How much this operational effort remains true to John Z's framework today is anyone's guess. I have never heard "taxonomy" mentioned by these folks. DEddy (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason why we have so many "stove pipe" systems is because we have tended to start working on the serious details of systems design and development before we have sorted out the 100,000 ft layer of the enterprise. I'm reminded of the joke Zachman often tells in his presentations about the two software engineers. One says to the other, you go start writing code and I'll go see what the client needs. : ) Phogg2 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks. This has been an interesting discussion about knowledge and such, but the core question is this: Is the Zachman framework appropriately described by using the word "taxonomy." The American Heritage Dictionary, as cited by Reference.Com, defines Taxonomy with three definitions. Excluding the 'biology' definition, the other two apply: "2. The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics. 3. Division into ordered groups or categories" [1]

Think about it. Does Zachman provide a science, law, or principle used to classify things? I believe that it does. Zachman assumes that the answers to the fundamental questions of business and IT infrastructure already exist. His framework divides up those existing resources into "ordered groups or categories." The word is an appropriate description of the ZF.

To Deddy: the article you cited is interesting. It appears that you wrote it. Very nice. However, the process that you describe was developed by the company in question. That process is not part of the ZF. You specifically cite that the initial direction taken by the team, including bring in John Zachman himself, led to a failure. Clearly, he was still trying to figure out the methodology himself. The ZF itself does not include any mention of methodology. You are free to develop any methodology you want, therefore it is not useful to consider a method, used by a third party, as part of the definition of the framework itself. An engine is not a car. It is part of a car. A taxonomy is not a framework. It is part of a framework.

Let's ease up on this discussion. There does not appear to be contraindicated published statements from any reliable source that describes the Zachman framework as anything other than a taxonomy except those that simply quote Zachman himself. It was the search for an independent description that led to this term in the first place. Let's reopen this discussion only after someone has found another source to cite that indicates otherwise. Let's leave our opinions out of the articles. --Nickmalik (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ontology

I have learned that John Zachman is now using the term "ontology" to describe the Framework (as well as classification schema). He objects to it being described as a taxonomy because most taxonomies are hierarchical and can contain identical concepts in multiple branches (e.g., "genus" in multiple branches of the animal kingdom taxonomy). The 36 cells of the Zachman Framework are unique and independent.

Comments?--Phogg2 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I, too, have heard the word 'ontology' used to refer, in some sense, to an unordered, multidimensional scheme of knowledge. The problem that I have with using that term, in Wikipedia, is that the dictionaries have not kept up. Therefore, if someone were to read our little article and see the word "ontology" and that same person were to say to him or herself, "I wonder what that means?" and if they were to refer to a standard reference work like, say, a dictionary, they would see this:

(Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictioary) on·tol·o·gy /ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/ –noun 1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such. 2. (loosely) metaphysics.
(or from American Heritage Dictionary, as cited by Dictionary.com) on·to·log·i·cal adj. Of or relating to ontology. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

While I do not disagree that the use of the word 'ontology' has started to creep into Enterprise Architecture, it may be too soon to use that work in a general reference work like the Wikipedia, at least inasmuch as the preponderance of dictionaries do not use the term outside the realm of religious discussions.

On the other hand, the definition of 'taxonomy' says nothing about heirarchy. The majority of definitions do mention science or biology. However more than one take a general approach, as the following citation illustrates.

(American Heritage Dictionary, as cited by Dictionary.com) tax·on·o·my n. pl. tax·on·o·mies The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships. The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics. Division into ordered groups or categories: "Scholars have been laboring to develop a taxonomy of young killers" (Aric Press).

Therefore, while there may be a 'general connotation' among some people that the term 'taxonomy' implies heirarchy, that connotation is simply the result of the failure, of those individuals, to understand the definition of the term. Selecting a different, and less appropriate term, to describe the ZF, entirely on the basis of a misunderstanding, seems counterintuitive to me.

Nickmalik (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you are getting at, but one of the senses of the meaning of ontology as provided by Wikipedia refers to metaphysics, saying, "It studies being or existence and its basic categories and relationships, to determine what entities and what types of entities exist. Ontology thus has strong implications for conceptions of reality."

Zachman is also now describing the transformations of ideas in the upper rows (Rows 1, 2, and 3) to reality in the lower rows (Rows 4, 5 and 6) as examples of "reification" - another concept from ancient Greece, along with metaphysics and ontology.

I think the main obstacle to including these things in this article at this time is the lack of published documentation regarding them. All I have is handouts provided by John at one of his seminars. --Phogg2 (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to mention the term 'ontology' in the article if it's attributed to John Zachman. That clarifies that it is his choice of words, and may not have hit the dictionaries yet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now published documentation describing the Zachman Framework as an ontology at the updated Zachman International website - http://www.zachmaninternational.com/. I will update the Wiki article accordingly. Phogg2 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fine if we attribute Zachman referring to his taxonomy as an ontology. I do consider it a stretch to refer to most anything in Enterprise Architecture as something that describes the nature of existence ;-) but perhaps we are simply watching the gradual change in the meaning of a word. --Nickmalik (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

SOMF

I have noticed references to SOMF scattered throughout the articles for Enterprise Architecture. Let's let SOMF be linked from the article on Enterprise Architecture Frameworks and remove it from other general purpose articles. (The same goes for all frameworks... let the link to the framework come from the frameworks article, not from the general Enterprise Architecture, Business Architecture, Application or Solution Architecture, and Technical Architecture articles. I will remove from this one both the references to SOMF and to TOGAF.--Nickmalik (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

点对点 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.191.76.91 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of Capitals

I undid the edit that changed "Zachman Framework" to "Zachman Framework" based on the English grammar rule concerning proper nouns. The "Zachman Framework" is a proper noun, in the same sense as "Atlantic Ocean" or "The Open Group Architecture Framework."

Where the word "Framework" appears without the "Zachman" qualifier, it should be assumed to mean "Zachman Framework" in the context of the article. If we didn't capitalize it, the word "framework" would mean any framework.

While on this topic, I feel that both words in the title of the Wiki article should be capitalized, but I don't have any control over that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogg2 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for November 7 Edit

The previous version included a graphic that did not reflect the Zachman Framework either in its current form or in its original form. It mixed names of rows and titles with some Zachman Framework titles, but changed or added some others that have never been published either by IBM or John Zachman.

I removed the graphic along with a statement that said that the Zachman Framework was "one of the earliest architecture frameworks." In fact it was the original enterprise architecture framework. Phogg2 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good changes. Note that there are other folks who can reasonably lay claim to "the earliest" framework. It is not salient to a discussion of ZF, since it is valuable for more than it's release date. We can avoid controversy by not making a claim of "earliest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I readded the image, because I think this is a representative example of a modified Zachman Framework. Maybe the caption of the image should better express this is not an original by John Zachman himself, which all seems to be copyrighted.

I guess we could argue here if a modified Framework could als be called a Zachman Framework. It seems to me there are several modified frameworks called Zachman frameworks. Just like for example the Nassi-Shneiderman diagram, the Zachman Framework has become the name of a specfic type of diagram. I think this is one aspect this article should explain some more.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One other thing, I think, is that most of the speculation about the Framework by Zachman himself should be moved to the John Zachman article. This article should be build with ideas and experiences from independend third party sources.

I have removed the image again, and from other Wikipedia articles as well, because of it's copyright status. I will try to find an other way to illustrate this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)