Talk:Architecture description language

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The definition provided is very much a definition of an SADL rather than an ADL in general. In other words, Software-Architecture Description Language. There are also languages for the description of Enterprise Architecture, which are clearly also ADL's: ArchiMate, MEMO, DEMO, etc. These languages do not necessarily refer to software components, etc. Nevertheless, they are ADL's.

Erikproper (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture vs. design

Quoting from this section:

..whereas design is a principle through which functional requirements are accomplished.

Design is a principle? It is an activity or the result of this activity. But "a principle"? I never encountered the word design with this sense nor dictionaries report it. Can some native English speaker shed some light?

--MaD70 (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process is a better word, I changed things a bit, and made the sentence more active.

HacksawPC (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem in this section - what could the following statement possibly mean (in English!)?:

"Architecture casts non-functional decisions ..."

yoyo (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and NPOV

The major weakness of the present article is its lack of references. The article quotes a single source for its statements. This is simply not enough third-party citation to make for an encyclopaedic article.

I thank the various editors for their contributions, which together do manage to communicate the nature and purpose of ADLs, together with an indication of their variety and scope. However, the lack of sources means it's impossible to assess the emphasis given to various contenders or the qualitative judgements made in the article, without engaging in considerable research. Without sources, how can we assure ourselves of an NPOV?

Surely statements such as:

"Much has been learned about representing and analyzing architectures"

could be sourced? That would make it easier to find out the specifics of what has been learned to date. And this statement simply cries out for at least three supporting references:

"There is a rich body of research to draw upon"

yoyo (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article seems to make many dubious claims. Serious faults include a lack of mention of Category:System description languages and hardware description languages, which, in the world I come from, are what some people talk about when they say "architecture description". (viz instruction set architecture.) linas (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the section "characteristics" seems to be plagiarism of a 1999 MCC powerpoint presentation: http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf/bbs/9910wash/adl_over.ppt the bullit points are nearly verbatim. linas (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]