The Restaurant at the End of the Internet

This is my second blog entry related to my claim that Web 2.0 needs architects. It's been a while since the first one because I've been working on a new book on enterprise architecture (as also mentioned in the previous entry). This blog entry is to some extend a raw dump of some thoughts, and hasn't really been polished. I just didn't want to wait much longer. Nevertheless, I hope that it, even in its current form, sparks some discussions. In my opinion, Web 2.0 is yet another technology trend in the list from OO, via CBD, ORB's, to The Web, SoA, XML, Semantic Web, Web 2.0, .... Thinking about the promises of Web 2.0, and the role of (enterprise) architects in this made me go back to an old question: What if we can create a paradigmatic model of IT in terms of which we can explain current IT trends and predict future trends, or even derive directions for future technology developments? Rather than having to be bystanders while one new technology passes by after th...

This week I will not yet continue my Web 2.0 series, but rather respond to a comment on my last post. My claim that Web 2.0 needs architects, led to a comment/question: Especially the phrase 'of course' caught my attention. Why do you think enterprise-architects should already be involved this early on in the process? Is strategy in their domain too? I would be very interested in seeing a post why you feel enterprise architects add value to an organization, and what you feel should be part of their responsibilities. If you make me really happy, please address the role of enterprise architecture in relation to the effectiveness and efficiency of information security controls. Which was a direct response to my statement: " This actually triggered me into realising that the Web 2.0 needs information architects. Of course, when an enterprise considers utilizing Web 2.0 technologies an enterprise architect should be involved in deciding-on/designing the best way of doing this....

This blog entry is cross-blogged between the VNA website and my own blog site. I like to keep my blog entries, as well as my comments to other people’s blogs, accessible through my personal blog site. The result is that people will be entering comments on different locations. Even more, since Plaxo also includes these blogs in my pulse stream, people can even respond to my blogs in plaxo, and I have noticed that these comments do not automatically show up on the original blog sites. Of course one might argue that "cross blogging" should not be done, but at the same time I think it is a defendable stance that I should be able to publish my blog (and their comments) through multiple channels. This actually triggered me into realising that the Web 2.0 needs information architects. Of course, when an enterprise considers utilizing Web 2.0 technologies an enterprise architect should be involved in deciding-on/designing the best way of doing this. However, I also think the techn...

This is a cross-posting (a cross-blogging?) from my blog at Via Nova Architectura . The reason for cross posting this blog entry is that I want to keep at leas a copy of all my blog entries at a central location. When looking at the different types of interpretations of what enterprise architecture is, I believe there are three main perspectives on what architecture is about: A regulation-oriented perspective in which architecture is regarded as a way to govern the design/evolution/transformation of an enterprise by means of regulations. In other words, in this perspective architecture is regarded as a prescriptive notion limiting the design freedom with regards to the design and evolution of a system. A design-oriented perspective in which the essential properties of a system are being designed. This perspective treats architectures as actual specifications of high level system designs focussing on `architecturally relevant' design decisions and tradeoffs. A p...

Google scholar is a search engine for scientific publications. I wonder if it would make sense for google scholar to provide academics functionality which allows them to easily maintain their publication lists. Consider, just as an example, my list . I try and keep the publication details up-to-date, where possible and allowed I'll also add PDF files of (and/or links to) the actual paper. As some of you may know, publications, and in particular citations of one's publications, have become the currency of the scientific community (whether that is good or bad is another discussion ... another blog entry to follow). This means that authors have a strong interest in keeping their publication record available and ensuring the publication data (meta-data) is correct and complete. Usually using some mechanism such as BiBTeX. See here for an example. So why would google scholar want maintain this data for me? Well, I'm not proposing they do all the work for me, but, if you look at...

Well, I have decided to start blogging. In most cases (iPod, Apple-TV, Mac Mini as VCR in the living room, etc), I am an early adopter. In the case of blogging I've been rather slack. I hope to remedy this now. Rather than using this blog purely to publish my opinion / thoughts / ideas, I intend to use this blog as a notebook for ideas as well (and gather comments in the process). This notebook is not to be confused with the notebook I have on Google Notebooks with a list of resources on enterprise engineering and architecting.