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。
前言
随着信息系统实施规模和难度的不断增长，如何用逻辑结构（或架构）模型定义和管理系统内各组件间的接口和集成关系，已变的越来越重要。本文在信息系统之外的学科领域抽象出一种中立、客观的描述性框架，反向类比出信息系统架构的定义，同时，框架推导过程中形成的一些初步结论也在本文中予以呈现。相关的探讨，仅限于架构层面，不包括战略规划层面的方法。
With increasing size and complexity of the implementationsof information systems, it is necessary to use some logical construct (orarchitecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and the integrationof all of the components of the system. This paper defines information systems architecture by creating adescriptive framework from disciplines quite independent of informationsystems, then by analogy specifies information systems architecture based uponthe neutral, objective framework. Also, some preliminary conclusions about theimplications of the resultant descriptive framework are drawn. The discussionis limited to architecture and does not include a strategic planningmethodology.
信息系统架构正开始受到越来越多的关注。信息系统实现范围和复杂性的不断增加，迫切需要通过逻辑结构(或架构)模型来定义和管理系统内各组件接口以集成关系。三十年前（本文发表于1987年），在当时的信息技术条件下，信息系统规模和复杂性较低，讨论信息系统架构是没有意义的。例如，在4K的计算机技术条件下，一些设计和优化工作根本无从谈起。
The subject of information systems architecture isbeginning to receive considerable attention. The increased scope of design andlevels of complexity of information systems implementations are forcing the useof some logical construct (or architecture) for defining and controlling theinterfaces and the integration of all of the components of the system. Thirtyyears ago this issue was not at all significant because the technology itselfdid not provide for either breadth in scope or depth in complexity ininformation systems. The inherent limitations of the then available 4Kmachines, for example, constrained design and necessitated suboptimalapproaches for automating a business.
技术的发展正在迅速消除观念和成本的限制。在可预期的未来，将有规模庞大、复杂度高的信息系统进行实施，其实施范围也将扩展至整个组织层面。我们可以清晰的看到这种大型、复杂、面向组织级实施方法的优势——这种系统可以灵活地适应业务的调整，并与组织对业务资源管理策略保持一致性。当然，传统的、小规模、次优系统方法也有其优点。比如，成本低、实施速度快、易于设计和管理等。
Current technology is rapidly removing both conceptual andfinancial constraints. It is not hard to speculate about, if not realize, verylarge, very complex systems implementations, extending in scope and complexityto encompass an entire enterprise. One can readily delineate the merits of thelarge, complex enterprise-oriented approaches. Such systems allow flexibilityin managing business changes and coherency in the management of businessresources. However, there also is merit in the more traditional, smaller,suboptimal systems design approach. Such systems are relatively economical,quickly implemented, and easier to design and manage.
不论以上哪种实施模式，由于“分布式”概念和技术的出现，大量的信息系统组件（或应用）“分发”到不同的计算单元，组件间的结构(或架构)成为需要明确管理的内容，没有结构将导致混乱。因此，为了防止业务碎片化、信息孤岛等问题，通过信息系统架构来规范和管理各系统，已成为信息系统投资建设过程中的必然选择。业务的发展越来越离不开信息系统的支撑，而信息系统在成本控制还是在实现效果上的成功，都需要在信息系统管理中引入更加规范化的方法。
In either case, since the technology permits “distributing”large amounts of computing facilities in small packages to remote locations,some kind of structure (or architecture) is imperative because decentralizationwithout structure is chaos. Therefore, to keep the business fromdisintegrating, the concept of information systems architecture is becomingless an option and more a necessity for establishing some order and control inthe investment of information systems resources. The cost involved and thesuccess of the business depending increasingly on its information systemsrequire a disciplined approach to the management of those systems.
既然我们认为对信息系统架构的清晰理解对形成一种规范化的实施方法非常重要，随之而来的问题就是“到底什么是信息系统架构？”不幸的是，在信息化行业内对“架构”的概念和内涵还没有形成一致性的认识。而在没有达成一致的情况下来谈“信息系统架构”，纯扯！换句话说，从专业信息化领域抽象出具有通用性、中立性的架构概念几乎是不可能的。要开展对架构的定义工作，要换个视角，找到更为中立、公正、独立的开端。
On the assumption that an understanding of informationsystems architecture is important to the development of a disciplined approach,the question that naturally arises is “What, in fact, is information systemsarchitecture?” Unfortunately, among the proponents of information systemsarchitecture, there seems to be little consistency in concepts or inspecifications of “architecture,” to the extent that the words “informationsystems architecture” are already losing their meaning! Furthermore, itprobably is not reasonable to expect reconciliation or commonality ofdefinition to emerge from the professional data processing community itself.The emotional commitment associated with vested interests almost demands aneutral, unbiased, independent source as a prerequisite for any acceptable workin this area.
无论如何，制定某种框架，使各种架构概念和方法合理化、规范化是十分必要的。一方面促进专业、明确的沟通，另一方面，有效的改进和集成各种开发方法和工具，此外，有助于建立对信息系统投资的信任和信心。
In any event, it likely will be necessary to develop somekind of framework for rationalizing the various architectural concepts andspecifications in order to provide for clarity of professional communication,to allow for improving and integrating development methodologies and tools, andto establish credibility and confidence in the investment of systems resources.
虽然信息系统架构与组织的战略、信息化战略和业务战略息息相关，但本文的讨论范围聚焦在架构，而不涉及如何提出组织战略规划的方法。组织战略的规划以及与信息化战略的联系，最终如何以架构的方式体现，是需要研究的重要课题；但它与本文的研究主题不同，本文旨在为信息系统架构定义一个框架。
Although information systems architecture is related tostrategy, both information strategy and business strategy, this paperdeliberately limits itself to architecture and should not be construed aspresenting a strategic planning methodology. The development of a businessstrategy and its linkage to information systems strategies, which ultimatelymanifest them- selves in architectural expression, is an important subject topursue; but it is quite independent of the subject of this work, which isdefining a framework for information systems architecture.
<<未完待更>>�
