Principles of human body proportions.
This is one of the references for an architect, when considering that Architecture is about shaping spaces for human flourishing and activity.
Transposed to Enterprise Architecture, what’s relevant isn’t that much human body, but “shaping spaces”.
Technology.
It is worth and even required to differentiate Technology related to “Firmitas” and Technology related to “Utilitas”.
There’s the technology of the built per say, and the technology as the tool/enabler of the activity.
In building Architecture, technology most often relates to the built, while in Enterprise Architecture, technology rather relates to tools for activity.
That offset in the transposition between a building and an Enterprise is why most analogies fail.
The big picture.
Vitruvius admits that technical details can quickly make a design opaque. Enterprise architecture should be about the big picture not about all the details.
It appears that, from Architecture perspective, current practices of Enterprise Architecture rather relates to the design of a mesh of “details”. And any defined principles to design that mesh still relates to a level of “details”.
Holistic approach.
How components fit into the bigger picture.
The point is to shape the big picture, so it can integrate components.
It also means that it provides the criteria (correlated at a generic high level) which make a component relevant.
Rather than a “Big picture”, Enterprise Architecture provides “the Build picture”.