blocks|key|2169083|text|你似乎对形势有很好的把握，对建筑领域的理解也很好。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2169084|“系统”架构的定义有点难--可能是寻找“解决方案”或"+it+"，但听起来像是在寻找软件体系结构与物理服务器世界的关系，加入了一些网络。|2169085|“我们有很多聪明的人在做正确的事情，但不是始终如一地重复。”|blockquote|2169086|然后，TOGAF+8认证了我自己--我想说，TOGAF给定义架构的不同方面带来了一种“方法学”的感觉，也是一种将不同的专业技术小组聚集在一起并将其牢牢地与业务目标联系在一起的方法。TOGAF还有助于理解体系结构治理的需要，并坚定地将变更的思想(从技术、数据、系统、软件和业务的各个部分)引入到流程中。|2169087|这个|2169088|建筑开发方法|ordered-list-item|2169089|技术参考模型|2169090|标准信息库|2169091|企业连续体|2169092|所有这些都有助于收集有关架构工作的信息，并为开发和EA提供一致的方法。|2169093|它还帮助客户了解您正在做什么，以及您如何将TOAGF表示为显示它是如何结合在一起的方法。|2169094|PS+-我只声明TOGAF是有用的，做引用，我已经退出，因为TOAGF将为您解决这个问题。|2169095|外面还有其他建筑师的框架。|2169096|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|14|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|15|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|16|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|6|7|17|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|M|7|18|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|N|3|O|5|M|7|19|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|P|3|Q|5|M|7|1A|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|R|3|S|5|M|7|1B|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|T|3|U|5|6|7|1C|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|V|3|W|5|6|7|1D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|X|3|Y|5|6|7|1E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|Z|3|10|5|6|7|1F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|11|3|-4|5|6|7|1G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|12|$]]

You seem to have a really good grasp of the situation and the understanding of the realm of artchitecture.

"Systems" Architecure is little harder to define - may be look for "solution" or "IT", but it sounds like your looking for how your software architecture relates to the physical server world, with a bit of networking thrown in

<blockquote>
 "We have a lot of smart people doing the right things, but just not consistently and repeatably."
</blockquote>

Then, being TOGAF 8 certifed myself, - I would say that TOGAF brings a sense of "methodology" to different aspects of defining architecture and a way to bring a variours specialist technical groups together and pinning that firmly to the business objectives. TOGAF also helps understand the need for Architecture governance and firmly brings the idea of change (from all parts technical, data, systems, software and business) into the process.

The 

<ol>
<li>Architecture Development Method</li>
<li>Technical Reference Model</li>
<li>Standards Information Base</li>
<li>Enterprise Continuum</li>
</ol>

All help gather information about the Archtecture effort and provide a consistant approach to developing and EA.

It also helps customers understand what you are doing and how you can present TOAGF as the method of showing how it fits together.

PS - I only state TOGAF as being useful do the quote that i have pulled out as TOAGF would address this for you.

There are other architect framworks out there.

blocks|key|2169196|text|几天前，我提交了这个问题，但通过继续研究，在阅读了小韭菜的回复之后，我想我找到了一份有趣的白皮书，我发现这份白皮书内容丰富，很有趣。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|2169197|阅读：四大企业体系结构方法的比较+By:收到|2169198|一段片段..。|2169199|在过去的20年中，许多企业体系结构方法已经来来去去。在这一点上，大概90+%25的领域使用以下四种方法中的一种：|2169200|企业架构的Zachman框架虽然自诩为一个框架，但实际上更准确地定义为一个分类法。|unordered-list-item|2169201|开放组架构框架(-Although)称为框架，实际上更准确地定义为一个过程|2169202|联邦企业体系结构--可以被看作是一种已实现的企业体系结构，也可以被视为创建企业体系结构的一种禁止方法。|2169203|Gartner方法-可以最好地描述为一个企业架构实践。|2169204|本白皮书讨论了企业体系结构的这四种方法。它是在一家虚拟公司的背景下这样做的，它正面临着一些非常非虚构的经营问题。这些问题包括：|2169205|信息技术系统变得越来越复杂，维护成本也越来越高。|2169206|IT系统阻碍了组织以及时和成本有效的方式应对当前和未来市场状况的能力。|2169207|不断过时和/或完全错误的关键任务信息。|2169208|企业与技术部门之间的一种不信任文化。|2169209|白皮书在几个方面帮助了我。|2169210|它给了我一个很好的介绍和架构的历史(特别是企业架构)。|ordered-list-item|2169211|它向我介绍了作者建议的4种领先的企业体系结构。|2169212|然后继续以一种逻辑和简单的方式将它们与我能联系到的好例子进行比较。|2169213|我不能说我的所有问题都已得到回答，我现在准备去死：|2169214|我仍然重视你对这个问题可能提出的任何补充意见、建议和问题。|2169215|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/users/962/littlegeek|1|http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx^0|P|3|0|0|3|D|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|1P|8|@]|9|@$A|1Q|B|1R|1|1S]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|1T|8|@]|9|@$A|1U|B|1V|1|1W]]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|1X|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|1Y|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|K|5|L|7|1Z|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|L|7|20|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|O|3|P|5|L|7|21|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|Q|3|R|5|L|7|22|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|S|3|T|5|6|7|23|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|U|3|V|5|L|7|24|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|W|3|X|5|L|7|25|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|Y|3|Z|5|L|7|26|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|10|3|11|5|L|7|27|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|12|3|13|5|6|7|28|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|14|3|15|5|16|7|29|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|17|3|18|5|16|7|2A|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|19|3|1A|5|16|7|2B|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|1B|3|1C|5|6|7|2C|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|1D|3|1E|5|6|7|2D|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|1F|3|-4|5|6|7|2E|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|1G|$1H|$5|1I|1J|1K|C|$1L|1M]]|1N|$5|1I|1J|1K|C|$1L|1O]]]]

I submitted the question a couple of days ago, but by continued research and after reading <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/962/littlegeek">littlegeek</a>'s reponse, I think I have found an interesting white paper that I found very informative and interesting. 

Read: <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies</a>
By: Roger Sessions

a snippet...

-- - - - - - - - - - - 8&lt; - - - - - - - - - - - -

Many enterprise-architectural methodologies have come and gone in the last 20 years. At this point, perhaps 90 percent of the field use one of these four methodologies: 

<ul>
<li>The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures—Although self-described as a framework, is actually more accurately defined as a taxonomy </li>
<li>The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF)—Although called a framework, is actually more accurately defined as a process </li>
<li>The Federal Enterprise Architecture—Can be viewed as either an implemented enterprise architecture or a proscriptive methodology for creating an enterprise architecture </li>
<li>The Gartner Methodology—Can be best described as an enterprise architectural practice </li>
</ul>

This white paper discusses these four approaches to enterprise architecture. It does so within the context of a fictional company that is facing some very nonfictional operations problems. These problems include: 

<ul>
<li>IT systems that have become unmanageably complex and increasingly costly to maintain. </li>
<li>IT systems that are hindering the organization's ability to respond to current, and future, market conditions in a timely and cost-effective manner. </li>
<li>Mission-critical information that is consistently out-of-date and/or just plain wrong. </li>
<li>A culture of distrust between the business and technology sides of the organization.</li>
</ul>

-- - - - - - - - - - - 8&lt; - - - - - - - - - - - -

The White Paper helped me in several ways.

<ol>
<li>It gave me a good introduction and history of Architecture (Enterprise Architecture specifically)</li>
<li>It introduced me to what the author suggest is the 4 leading Enterprise Architectures available.</li>
<li>And then continues to compare them in a logical and simple manner with good examples that I could relate to.</li>
</ol>

I cannot say that all my questions have been answered and I am now ready to die :-), but much has become clearer and thus I thought that someone else out there may also find this useful.

I would still value any additional comments, suggestions and questions you may have on this subject.

blocks|key|853405|text|我在EA方面没有亲身经验，但实际上我同意。在前四大EA方法中，我遇到了前三种。我只是不知道高德纳一号，也许是因为它的文件不可用。IMHO，当我们谈论EA时，我们实际上是在谈论将业务与技术结合起来。因此，所有EA方法都必须面向业务。如果不是，那根本就不是EA。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|853406|我认为TOGAF是非常有用和可以理解的。是的，这是一个将当前的基线架构演变为目标体系结构的过程。体系结构原则是EA开发的高级指导。TOGAF的核心组件是业务体系结构、信息体系结构和技术架构。他们每个人都可以有自己的架构模式。NIH已经与FEAF一起实现了EA。这是实现EA的一个很好的例子。我认为这与TOGAF方法非常相似，至少从交付品的角度来看是如此。|offset|length|853407|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/^0|0|34|3|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@$D|P|E|Q|1|R]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]]]

I have no hands-on experience on EA, but I'm actually on board with it. Among the top 4 EA methodologies, I have encountered the first three. I just don't know the Gartner one, maybe because of the unavailability of its documents. IMHO, when we are talking about EA, we are actually talking about aligning business with technology. So all of EA methodologies must be business oriented. If not, it's not EA at all. 

I think TOGAF is quite useful and understandable. Yes, it is a process which evolve current baseline architecture into target architecture. Architecture principles act as the high level guidance of EA development. The core components of TOGAF are business architecture, information architecture, and technology architecture. And each of them can have its own architecture patterns. <a href="http://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NIH</a> has implemented an EA with FEAF. It is a good example for implementing EA. I think it is quite similar to TOGAF approach, at least from point of view of the deliverables.

blocks|key|2169326|text|到目前为止，创建EA建模框架的唯一明智尝试是Archimate：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchiMate|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|2169327|ArchiMate是开放集团的技术标准，基于IEEE1471标准的概念。|2169328|另外，请参阅以下关于EA工件及其之间的可跟踪性的链接：|2169329|https://www.ontario.ca/document/go-its-56-ops-enterprise-architecture-principles-and-artefacts-appendix-ontario-public-service|2169330|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchiMate|1^0|W|13|0|0|0|0|0|3I|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@$A|T|B|U|1|V]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|W|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|X|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@$A|Z|B|10|1|11]]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|12|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|Q]]|R|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|I]]]]

The only sensible attempt to create a modelling framework for EA so far has been Archimate: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchiMate" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchiMate</a>

ArchiMate is a technical standard from The Open Group and is based on the concepts of the IEEE 1471 standard.

Also, see the following link about EA artifacts and traceability between them:

<a href="https://www.ontario.ca/document/go-its-56-ops-enterprise-architecture-principles-and-artefacts-appendix-ontario-public-service" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ontario.ca/document/go-its-56-ops-enterprise-architecture-principles-and-artefacts-appendix-ontario-public-service</a>

I am currently tasked with creating a documented, consistent Architecture guide for software development. We have a lot of smart people doing the right things, but just not consistently and repeatably.

We are using Microsoft’s Application Architecture Guide 2.0 as a starting point. Hence coming up with an Application Architecture is fairly (I won't say easy) straight forward. Possibly because I have a couple of years experience as a developer so I have a pretty good understanding of this realm and there are also loads of examples and guidance.

Since our organisation has a couple of applications that form 1 or more systems which we then install "at" clients... we thought it would make sense to create a System Architecture and an Enterprise Architecture as well. And this is where the problems start.

There is no consistent guidance out there. If you search for "System Architecture Examples", the stuff that you get back is so different that I am wondering if there is a "Standard" way to do this.

From my (Limited - clearly) understanding of it all, the System Architecture is an abstraction of 1 or more application architectures depicting how they work together to form a system. Furthermore, an Enterprise Architecture is a further abstraction showing how your system(s) fit into a organisations Enterprise and how it interacts with the Business processes, IT Strategy and how it Integrats into other systems in the enterprise.

<ul>
<li>Do I have it completely wrong?</li>
<li>Are there any standards out there (and where can I find them)?</li>
<li>Should there be standards, or would a "good" System Architecture simply be any document in any format which is clearly and easily understandable and useful to its readers?</li>
<li>What would the seasoned Architects think of that approach though? </li>
</ul>

I don't want to simply list a set of SOA related patterns that may be useful... I'd like to make it a little more focused to what we do, which is the build financial solutions on a Service Orientated Architecture.

Update: What about <a href="http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">TOGAF(9)</a>. Does anyone have experience with it at all and is it worth the effort of trying to understand it in detail.

Enterprise, Systems and Application Architecture (Best Practice?)

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

我目前的任务是为软件开发创建一个有文档的、一致的体系结构指南。我们有很多聪明的人在做正确的事情，但不是始终如一地重复。我们使用Microsoft的应用程序架构指南2.0作为起点。因此，提出一个应用程序体系结构是公平的(我不会说很容易)。可能是因为我有几年的开发经验，所以我对这个领域有很好的理解，还有大量的例子和指导。由...

问企业、系统和应用体系结构(最佳实践？)
EN

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问企业、系统和应用体系结构(最佳实践？)EN

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问企业、系统和应用体系结构(最佳实践？)
EN