Talk:John Zachman

Scott Ambler Link

The two links in the External Links section appear to be more about the Zachman Framework than about John Zachman. Should they be removed?

Phogg2 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've removed them as off-topic. Good call. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zachman Framework Poster Image

I think that the example of the Zachman Framework from a Veteran's Affairs tutorial should not be used in this article for two reasons. First, it is an altered version of the Zachman Framework. Second, it doesn't reflect the reification concept that Zachman has introduced into the revised version of the framework, which is referred to in the accompanying text.

I recommend that the image be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogg2 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I disgree. The caption of the explaines quit right:

Simplified Zachman Framework with it's rows explained

And, the discussion on the talk:Zachman framework explaines there is not one Zachman Framework. And last but not least, this article is not part of the Zachman International cooperation only interested in the latest version. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, I appreciate that it is someone's idea of a simplified explanation of the Zachman Framework. The trouble is, the simplified explanation as reflected by the various lines on the left hand side are incorrect, and the real Zachman Framework, the one before the current version, anyway, never defined Row 5 as "As Built." It should be removed.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Phogg2, the trouble is you keep pretending there is one real Zachman Framework, which there isn't. Please stop pretending. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, let's see if we can come to a common understanding. Here is how I see it. There is at present one and only one entity known as the Zachman Enterprise Framework2. It's trademarked illustration may be seen at http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/home-article/13#maincol. If other people use the same name and create an image but with different labels, besides the legal issue, the fact is whatever variation they produce is not going to be the same thing. It would be as if someone decided to use different symbols to represent the elements in the Periodic Table of Elements and still call it the Periodic Table of Elements.

There have been a few variations in the illustration of the predecessor of the current version, known as the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. Most of the changes were in the descriptions of the cell models, and in one case Row 2 was changed from "Enterprise Model" to "Business Model." But these were changes implemented by the source of the standard - John Zachman. Illustrations of the framework made by various organizations with changes made to suit their own purpose or interpretation must be viewed with suspicion, and certainly should not be given the same label as the standard they portend to be representing.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Phogg2. We have been discussing this particular matter for over one month now on the talk:Zachman framework, and have gone into the matter several times. Let's us just keep this discussion on one place.

I do agree the image doesn't really fit the accompanying text. I think the text should be rewritten. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, I agree the discussion should be in one place. I'll stop commenting on the image that we have been talking about in this discussion page with the understanding that it is my position that variations and interpretations of the framework that John Zachman originated and continues to have ownership over should not appear either in the Zachman Framework article or the John Zachman article. I am still waiting for a response from Zachman International to use low-res images of the "official" posters (old and new). I would much prefer that than to use other images, including the one I produced for the Zachman Framework article.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership or Public Domain

Simplified VA Zachman Framework

You are talking about "variations and interpretations of the framework that John Zachman originated and continues to have ownership over..."

Now we are talking about the Simplified VA Zachman Framework, see image. I traced the source of this image to:

• Source = VA’s Enterprise Architecture
• Author = Al Zuech, Director, Enterprise Architecture Service at the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
• Date = Feb 15 2002

Now you have already stated, that: "These are extracts from the ORIGINAL Framework not done by us nor certified by us. It would not be a certified elaboration of the published Framework standards. It was done by someone in Veteran's Affairs for their internal use. It does not accurately represent the concepts as we presently understand them.".

Do you mean John Zachman continues to have ownership over of this work by Al Zuech in 2002 employee of the US VA?

And what about the TEAF images from 2000, does he continu to own them as well?

• 
  9. TEAF Matrix of Views and Perspectives.
• 
  10. Framework for EA Direction, Description, and Accomplishment Overview.
• 
  11. TEAF Products.
• 
  12. TEAF Work Products for EA Direction, Description, and Accomplishment.

And what about the other developments within the VA department, does John Zachman continue to own those images as well.

• 
  18. Integrated Process Flow for VA IT Projects (2001)
• 
  19. VA Zachman Framework Portal
• 
  20. VA EA Repository Introduction (2008)
• 
  23. VA EA Meta-Model Cell Details.

Now Zachman and the US VA have worked together. In 2001 John Zachman spent for example several weeks working with the VA AE-One team, see here. The image must have been a result of their cooperation one way or an other. Now I wonder if there was a contract between the them, that the fruit of their cooperation remained the copyright of John Zachman. This sounds highly unlikely.

Now if you look to the VA’s Enterprise Architecture presentation it is clear that, the image of the Zachman Framework on page 3 is copyrighted by Zachman. The other sheets are work by an US government employee and there are at least a dozen differences between that copyrighted Zachman Framework and the image here. As far as I know copyright doesn't last if you create an whole different image, with multiple differences.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Phogg2 has made it quite clear Zachman international is not happy with the current illustration of the simplified 2002 VA Zachman Framework. Removing that image isn't an option for me, because it's a fine illustration of an applied Zachman Framework at the US Departement of Veteran Affairs, and made by the US Departement of Veteran Affairs

Now we all agree this is not the work of John Zachman himself. So a solution here could be, to replace that image with the non-free use media File:ZFArticlePages.jpg, which is made by John Zachman himself, allready used in the Zachman framework article. This image is allready present in Wikipedia. We only need to add an other non-free use media rationale at that image, and if nobody else has great objection, we can go for it.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time their are a dozen other images of the Zachman Framework, which could even be a better option. Wikipedia doesn't normally allow non-free use media, when alternatives are present. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Marcel: Thank you for offering a compromise. The image used in the original IMB Journal article would be most fitting.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have replace the image here, with a non-free/fair use image of the original. I can't promise other Wikipedians will respect this compromise. The use of none free images is very limited if other alternatives are possible. I guess this would please John Zachman as well. Did you happen to see the new historic overview of the frameworks development in the Zachman International website, here. I can't help thinking that overview is inspired on the discussion we have been having here regarding the need to show the development of the framework? The 1984 version stuck me as a surpise. Cheers. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcel. Yes, I have seen the ZF Evolution article, and I agree that it may well have been inspired by our discussion.

Cheers Phogg2 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Zachman Isn't a Computer Scientist

I think the reference to John being a computer scientist in the first line of the article should be removed. He doesn't have a Computer Science degree, nor has he worked with computers to the same degree that we normally associate with Computer Science. I'm guessing that someone may have assumed he was a computer scientist because he worked at IBM. When he worked at IBM he was known for his contributions to IBM's Information Strategy methodology (Business Systems Planning) as well as to their executive team planning techniques (Intensive Planning). -- Phogg2 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't just remove things aroudn here based on guesses. You could propose to improve the situation by given a better alternative, based on reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Phogg2's description of John's involvement with IBM's Business Systems Planning effort is accurate. It was a business effort to show business leaders how information flowed through their business processes, not computer "science." I think it fair to remove "computer scientist" from the opening line. DEddy (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree just removing terms from the first sentence. You should replace it with an other term. The first sentence needs to express what the person did, by expressing the person's profession. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose the article start out similar to the same way as John's bio at http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/home-article/14#maincol, e.g., John A. Zachman is the originator of the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture ... --Phogg2 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. Wikipedia has a manual of style, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for all biographical articles. I don't see any reason to make an exception here. Do you? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style

I can explain some more. The manual of style states:

The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Nationality –
   1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)
   2. "Ethnicity" should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

Now the current opening paragraph is the one line:

John A. Zachman is an American computer scientist, Chief Executive Officer of Zachman International, known as originator of the Zachman Framework proposed in 1987.

Now your propose:

John A. Zachman is the originator of the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture

This alternative doesn't state:

1. Date of birth
2. Nationality
3. What the person did

Your proposal only mentions "Why the person is significant". And personally I think his proposal of the Zachman Framework is just one of his accomplishments. He is also considered to be founder of the field of enterprise architecture.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comment

Marcel, I'm quite willing to comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding style, I was just proposing a more accurate term to describe what Zachman is noted for than "computer scientist," which isn't accurate at all.

We could say, "John Zachman is an American lecturer noted for originating the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture and for laying the foundation for the field of enterprise architecture ... etc." I can find his date of birth to add. -- Phogg2 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is he a lecturer...?? A lecturer seems to be a term of academic rank, according to Wikipedia. And does lectures normally develope new theories and tools, which are still often considered to be part of computer science? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the term "lecturer" - it's way too broad - and "computer scientist" sounds hardware-oriented. John is really an "IT architecture pioneer" - and he's one of the originals! If you like, I can ask him what he prefers! Jpaulm (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, an IT architecture pioneer...?? Three things. First, I generally don't like making up new job-descriptions for people in Wikipedia. The whole idea of this encyclopedia is to put things in boxes, so outsiders can easily understand, put the person in a scene, and relate him to similar people. This is all about introduction. Calling a person "an American computer science", in Wikipedia means his works relates to computer science.

Now the "computer scientist" sounds hardware-oriented...!? I am a not-native speaker and I have gotten used to the term computer science being similar to the Dutch "Informatica" and the German "Informatik". Now IT architecture and enterprise architecture emerged from this field, and according to many is still close related, if I am not mistaken.

And last from what I read, I guess, John Zachman himself would want to be called an enterprise architect pioneer. If we would incorporate this, we would get:

John A. Zachman is an American enterprise architecture pioneer, Chief Executive Officer of Zachman International, known as originator of the Zachman Framework proposed in 1987.

Or maybe even better:

John A. Zachman is an American early pioneer of enterprise architecture, Chief Executive Officer of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework published in 1987.

If you speak to John Zachman, maybe you can also ask him his date of birth. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, your sugestions look good to me. The reason I suggested "lecturer" is because that is what he does mostly - he lectures (or teaches) in the courses run by Zachman International. He is also an author, having written many articles and a book. In any event, your "pioneer" suggestion should do the trick. I thought I had his date of birth on file. I'll search again and if I can't find it I'll ask him the next time I'm speaking to him. -- Phogg2 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: It would also be nice to show his picture. I'll see what I can do there, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogg2 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your description sounds good to me too! Thanks Jpaulm (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to edit the intro to refelect what we have discussed above but can't seem to bring up the introductoru line in edit mode, i.e., there is not "edit" link to click on for it. Does anyone know how to edit it? Phogg2 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just go to Edit Page at the top... Jpaulm (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I restored the term computer scientist in the first sentence. Every person in Wikipedia should be described first of all with a familiar phrase. -- Mdd (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mdd, I agree that every person in Wikipedia should be introduced first with a familiar phrase, but John Zachman is not a computer scientist. Phogg2 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So what other familiar phrase (+ wiki link) do you suggest? -- Mdd (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had a discussion about this in the previous section (above). We seemed to agree on "pioneer of enterprise architecture." In any event, Zachman has never been a computer scientist. Phogg2 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A familiar phrase can be "consultant", "industry consultant", "business consultant", "IT consultant"... or any reasonable alternative. Please don't change the subject. Just make up your mind here. -- Mdd (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realize I had changed the subject. Of the terms that you suggested, I would say that "consultant" is perhaps the most appropriate. The opening line would read: "John A. Zachman (b. 1934) is a consultant and early pioneer of enterprise architecture, Chief Executive Officer of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework published in 1987." That looks OK to me. -- Phogg2 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think for Wikipedia the term consultant is to general. Could you agree with management consultant?? -- Mdd (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Management consultant doesn't seem right to me. I don't think he is ever hired as a management consultant - which I view as someone who is assigned to work on issues associated with specific organizations. Looking at what he does, he continues to develop the Zachman Framework classification schema, he writes about it, and he is hired to explain it in workshops. The Wiki definition of consultant is a "professional who provides professional or expert advice." Zachman provides expert advice on how to classify enterprise architecture artifacts. The Wiki definition for consultant also states: "A consultant is usually an expert or a professional in a specific field and has a wide knowledge of the subject matter." Zachman obviously has a wide knowledge of the subject matter in question - the Zachman Framework. I think he is a consultant in the Zachman Framework approach to enterprise architecture. -- Phogg2 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia the term "consultant" is not the most appropriate. There are all kinds of consultants. Because Wikipedia writes for a general audience we want to as specific as possible.

You know as well as that the management consultant is not consulting managers but is also consulting organization regarding management issues. Zachman has be advicing in the fields of Business Systems Planning and enterprise architecture, which he considers to be management issues. In reality there is some consensus that EA is still about IT. So Information technology consulting could also be possible...!? -- Mdd (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

While some folks do indeed think EA is mostly about IT, I think it perhaps because they don't understand EA. John Zachman has tried hard to get people to see the bigger enterprise picture, so I recommemd we not refer to "information technology consulting." How about "author and lecturer"? -- Phogg2 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please just specify what kind of consultant you can live with. -- Mdd (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How about Enterprise Architecture Consultant? -- 24.36.210.53 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. I made it a "business and IT consultant" for now. This should be familiar and specific enough. -- Mdd (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be funny. I am an enterprise architecture consultant. An enterprise architecture consultant is someone who provides a consulting service related to EA matters. John Zachman advises on how to classify EA artifacts. He most certainly is NOT an "IT consultant." He doesn't provide advice on IT matters except in the most general way, i.e., whatever you model (in IT or anything else in the enterprise), if it is to become part of the enterprise's architecture, make sure it is in a primitive (i.e., single variable) form. -- Phogg2 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a few contributions to this interesting debate. First off, the article is not about John Zachman. It is about a framework named after him. Let's not get too caught up in how we describe him. Secondly, the article is about an EA framework, so while it is technically OK to describe John as an EA consultant, the logic is a bit circular. It's a little like saying that the inventor of Alchemy has the title of Alchemist. There's no actual information there! More importantly, he doesn't actually perform the role of an EA. He performs the role of an educator. He educates Enterprise Architects, but does not actually produce the Enterprise Architecture. (Metaphor: He designed the car... but he doesn't drive the car. He is the designer, not the driver.)

I do not know if the term 'consultant' is appropriate for Wikipedia or not. I will take MDD's word for it. In the prior discussion, he was described as a pioneer (which says even less) but PHOGG was willing use the term 'lecturer'. I'm OK with that one as well.

What JZ did was not really all that unique... he took a look at a problem and tried to come up with a generic way to solve it... a way that can be used over and over. He invented a new concept and has spent many years educating other people on that concept. That makes him an inventor and educator. Note that another famous person who invented concepts and then educated people on them was Plato. We call Plato a philosopher. Perhaps JZ is a business philosopher! After all, part of the discussion is whether the Zachman framework is an ontology, which if you look up the word, is something that a philosopher would invent!

Honestly, I'd avoid the use 'consultant' in this context.

Nickmalik (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Nick. Just so we are on the same page, so to speak, the article we are discussing is in fact about John Zachman. You perhaps may have been thinking about the Zachman Framework article, which is the article about the framework named after him. I started out just wanting to remove the statement that JZ is a computer scientist, but apparently Wiki would want us to replace it with something else people can relate to. I would be comfortable with "inventor and educator," but Wikipedia may have a problem with that since there doesn't seem to be a Wiki link to "inventor," and educator takes you to an article that has to do with teachers in schools. I would also be happy with philosopher. I just checked out the Wiki definition of author - "An author ... is broadly defined as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything" and that authorship determines responsibility for what is created. Narrowly defined, an author is the originator of any written work." That fits JZ, methinks. So, how about this for an opener: John A. Zachman (b.1934) is an American author, early pioneer of enterprise architecture, Chief Executive Officer of Zachman International, and inventor of the Zachman Framework." `` Phogg2 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks indeed Nick for your input, which gives new perspectives. But at first I agree with Tony here, that you might still be focussed on the Zachman Framework article. Second, I full agree we should try to avoid that circular logic. I also think we should keep the Wikipedia:Five pillars in mind. First of all Wikipedia does not have firm rules, despite what Tony is trying to tell here. But maybe more important Wikipedia has a neutral point of view:... That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

Beside speculating about the trues term to describe Zachman's existence, we should take a look at the authoritative sources. Eventually we should build on those sources regardless of our own interpretation. For a start I have added a source to the current article's description. The text of the original source [Fong, 1989: p.63] stated:

John A. Zachman is a consultant for IBM's Applications Enabling Marketing Center. He joined the IBM Corporation in 1965 and has held various ...

I am sorry, Nick. Personally I think the NIST Special Publication 500-167 is the first mayor publication on AE. It also shows that, what JZ did was not really all that unique...!? I just noticed an other quote from that publication (p.63):

Mr Zachman travels nationally and internationally speaking and consulting in the area's of Information Systems Planning and Architecture and has written a number of articles on this subject.

In the current article the commonly unkonwn phrase Information Systems Planning and Architecture is replaced by the familiar phrase business and information technology. This seems like a pretty fine solution here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

JZ has come a long way since he worked as a consultant for IBM. If you want to say he "was' one, that's OK, but the article starts off in the present tense ... what "is" he? I still think "author" describes him best. He has authored books, articles, and is the "author" of the Zachman Framework. -- Phogg2 (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We have had this discussion on the Zachman Framework earlier: Wikipedia articles don't just state the current status of any person or subject. We are not a fanclub, nor do we offer homepage services...!? I haven't found a better independent and reliable source then that one I have used. Have you noticed that there is very little information about Zachman himself and his previous achievements? There is always the same phrases to introduce Zachman, which seem to be directed by Zachman himself. It always relates to his current state. I am not intend to just follow here. In Wikipedia we can make up our own mind by building on independent and reliable source.

I could be mistaken, but Zachman doesn't seem to be much of an author to me. His ideas on the Zachman Framework an AE has had his influences. But personally I thinks his writings are very limited. He has written one book about his framework and coauthored an other one. Lot of his articles and some other online writing is also about his Framework. Now I could be mistaken here. Please prove me wrong. Find me some independent and reliable source that state otherwise.

I don't understand what is wrong with the term consultant. Zachman has been consulting during his 26 years at IBM, and ever since with his company. -- Mdd (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What persuades me that author is the statement about author being "the person who originates or gives existence to anything." JZ originated and gave existence to the Zachman Framework. I think that is good enough. I share Nick's opinion about using the term "consultant." I was OK with it before if used in a very broad sense or perhap as an "enterprise architecture consultant," but "business and IT consultant" doesn't seem right to me because he doesn't adivise on business and IT matters. I agree with Nicj that we should avoid the term. -- Phogg2 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Tony. Could you come up with some reliable source(s)? -- Mdd (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have read it. I note that in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it says: The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." We can easily cite sources such as these to justify describing John Zachman as the author of the Zachman Framework. Are you suggesting we do this? -- Phogg2 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:PSTS. -- Mdd (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Example of quotes from third party reliable sources are:

• "Zachman is an industry consultant for IBM in Los Angeles, and he was addressing the 1982 Fall Executive Conference sponsored by International Data Corporation..."
  • Richard G. Canning (1981). EDP analyzer: Volumes 19-21

• "John A. Zachman is a consultant for IBM's Applications Enabling Marketing Center.
  • Source: Judith J. Newton (1990). Data Administration: Standards & Techniques. p.18

• "Zachman is a consultant for IBM's Applications Enabling Marketing Center".
  • Source: DIANE Publishing Company (1994). A Guide to Understanding Security Testing and Test Documentation p.18

• "John A. Zachman is CEO of Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement, Chairman of the Board of Zachman Framework Associates, and operator of Zachman International. John is well-known as the originator of the “Framework for Enterprise ..."
  • Barbara Von Halle, Larry Goldberg (2006). Business Rule Revolution (ebook): Running Business the Right Way. p xxi

• "John A. Zachman is the originator of the Framework for Enterprise Architecture."
  • Pallab Saha (2007). Handbook of Enterprise Systems Architecture in Practice. p.xvi

• "John A. Zachman is credited with creating enterprise architecture, though its foundations date back to the early 1900s"
  • Steve Clarke (2008). End user computing challenges and technologies. p. 48

-- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. With regards to the term "consultant," I don't think there is a dispute that he used to be one when he worked for IBM. If we wanted to include this in what he "is," however, we should say he "is a former IBM consultant." I'm not suggesting we do, but my point is it is incorrect to state "he is" something when he hasn't been doing it for quite some time. Moreover, I think it would be preferable when introducing topics about people to begin with what they are most notable for. In JZ's case, he is notable for being the author of the Zachman Framework, not for being a former IBM consultant. That said, I can see why it would not be appropriate to begin the intro with something like, "John Zachman is an American author, etc.," because that would imply his main activity is as an author, which it isn't. Will think some more about it. -- Phogg2 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

content/style

reads like an advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Two Historical Classifications

Zachman has repeatedly claimed that his framework is based on "two historical classifications", and many other sources repeat this claim. Therefore the claim is indisputably notable. However the claim itself is as far as I know unsubstantiated and has been challenged by many people including myself. The first classification seems to be based on a linguistic curiosity of the English language (which has existed for less than a thousand years) and is not universally supported by other languages. The second classification is based on a questionable notion of reification. Although Plato and Aristotle were interested in the relationship between the transient real and the unchanging ideal, the concept of reification was introduced much later e.g. to deal with the Problem of universals. Furthermore, Zachman's use of the word "reification" is non-standard, although there are hints of this use in the works of ibn Arabi. It is difficult to see any link between the works of these philosophers and the way "reification" is used by Zachman, and I therefore regard Zachman's claim as spurious. I think it is reasonable to quote Zachman's claim, either in this article or in the ZF article, but there should also be some indication that his claim is disputed. RichardVeryard (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)