Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Zachmann, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. _IBM Systems Journal 26_ (3), 276-292. An apparently seminal work in information architecture that provides a framework for a common language set for people implementing complex information systems. A description of the traditional architecture deliverables is genericized to manufacturing and the mapped to informations systems. The framework provides a multi-dimensional and extensible model that can be used by business owners, systems analysts, systems designers and programmers. -=-=- This is fine bit of systems thinking. I heartily approve of modeling in one domain and mapping the model to another domain. My largest criticism of this work is that by the end of the paper while I was conceptually prepared to understand the model the needed recapitulation was not there. I could not state with any confidence what the framework is. I assume I'll get that in the next article. Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Sowa, J. F. & Zachmann, J. A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. _IBM Systems Journal 31_ (3), 590-616. -=-=- As expected this article does go on to provide a better understanding of ISA. At the beginning of the article it is summarize succinctly and displayed graphically in a way that survived the copier. The authors then formalize the structure by providing rules for the system. This leads to some interesting thoughts: Why when creating a model of the universe are the modelers so insistent on creating rules from the model which they then wish to apply back to the universe? This sort of mental pigeonholing can be incredibly limiting and is surprising coming from a paper that discusses a model that was generated through what I like to call conceptual overlay: take a concept, map it, try to overlay it in a different domain, if you get some overlap you may be able to generalize your model. The model was created by permeating conceptual boundaries. Rules try to keep boundaries hard. I'm fairly convinced that Zachman is in this paper so Sowa can use him for coattails to crow about conceptual graphs. Rules are inevitable in the application of abstract theories. Especially when the application has as a goal the codification of the theory in a computing system. Conceptual graphs are great for computers but they are too constrained for people. I'm impressed that the ISA model is recursive but nor am I surprised: any model of reality must decompose to allow for the fractal nature of things. I think this article demonstrates rather nicely that language structures thinking and reality: a model of what, how, where was extended to include who, when, why just because it seemed reasonable, and it worked... Back to the Index