体系架构（Enterprise Architecture, EA）的开山之作，之前一直引用，从来没有系统的学习，通过翻译加深理解，与感兴趣的朋友一起学习探讨。在建房子、造飞机之后，作者开始进行通用性的归纳和总结，为引出信息系统架构做铺垫。翻译中自己理解的东西加的比较多，不对的地方大家多多指正。
在定义信息系统的架构表示之前，有必要进行一些通用性的分析。
Beforeidentifying the information systems analogs, it is useful to make some generalobservations regarding architecture.
首先，体系架构大致有三个基本描述方面，每一个对应一个“参与方”——业主、设计师和建设者。 业主内心对产品的目的有一些想法，架构师将这种对产品的感知转换成所有者视角的描述。接下来，架构师继续转换实体产品视角的描述，即设计师的视角的架构描述。最后，建设者结合行业规范和技术约束，从建设者的视角形成可行的产品方案。
First,there appear to be three fundamental architectural representations, one foreach “player in the game,” that is, the owner, the designer, and the builder.The owner has in mind a product that will serve some purpose. The architecttranscribes this perception of a product into the owner’s perspective. Next thearchitect translates this representation into a physical product, thedesigner’s perspective. The builder then applies the constraints of the laws ofnature and available technology to make the product producible, which is thebuilder’s perspective.
在这三个基本架构描述之前，需要建立关于大小、形状和范围等内容的大致描述，为后面的活动奠定基础。
Precedingthese three fundamental representations, a gross representation of size, shape,and scope is created to establish the “ballpark” within which all of theensuing architectural activities will take place.
随后的三个基本架构描述是详细的、独立的（上下文无关），技术上我们可以被称他们为架构，以区别于最终实际的产品。 然而，它们又不像“架构”，因为它们不是描述最终的产品，或者说描述的不全面，而更像是在指导生产过程。 但是为了框架的全面，我们仍将它们纳入本次讨论。
Succeedingthe three fundamental representations are the detailed, out-of-contextrepresentations which technically could be considered architectures becausethey are representations short of being the final physical product. However,they are somewhat less interesting “architecturally,” since they do not depictthe final product in total and are more oriented to the actual implementation activities.Nonetheless, they are included in this discussion for the purpose of ensuring acomprehensive framework.
关于这些架构的描述还需要重点注意的是，他们有着不同的性质。它们不是并列关系，但从描述的详细度上是逐步递进的。同时，详细度又是一个独立的变量，在任何一个架构表示中都不同。例如，设计师的架构描述(设计方案architect’s plans)不仅仅是业主的架构描述(架构图纸（效果图）architect’s drawings)的一个延续、递进的细化。它们在特点、内容、语义等方面都不同，代表着不同的视角。设计师的架构描述的详细度是可变的，并且与业主的架构架构描述的详细度是完全独立的。
Asignificant observation regarding these architectural representations is thateach has a different nature from the others. They are not merely a set ofrepresentations, each of which displays a level of detail greater than theprevious one. Level of detail is an independent variable, varying within anyone architectural representation. For example, the de- signer’s representation(i.e., architect’s plans) is not merely a succeeding, increasing level ofdetail of the owner’s representation (i.e., architect’s drawings). It isdifferent in nature, in content, in semantics, and so on, representing adifferent perspective. The level of detail of the designer’s representation(i.e., plans) is variable, and quite independent of the level of detail of theowner’s representation (i.e., drawings).
同样的，不仅详细度的不同与递进，每个架构描述在本质上也是完全不同的。
Inthe same fashion, each of the architectural representations differs from theothers in essence, not merely in level of detail.
<<未完待更>>
