There are a lot of Architects and types of Architectures that are spoken about leading to a dilution in the meaning and the responsibilities of each.
After going through the TOGAF literature on Enterprise Architecture, I was able to clearly distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of an Enterprise Architect and Solution Architect based on the work they are supposed to be doing.
Keeping in mind that Enterprise Architecture is to draw a Roadmap to align IT to Business by assessing the current state and understanding its gap from the target state, and Enterprise Architect is one who is able to come up with the transitional architectures that lead to various IT projects typically (sometimes even business projects). EA would define the solution context along with the high level transition architectures and hand over to the 'Solution Architect' with the details of the analysis.
After this, the EA is involved only in Governance Procedures to ensure that the Solution in the project is being implemented on the suggested solution building blocks and adhering to the initially defined Architectural principles.
It is at the point just before the roll out of projects or at the beginning of a roll out that a solution architect takes over from an EA and starts detailing the solution with the help of data, infrastructure and application architects (if required based on SMEs required). An SA would be answerable to an EA on any deviations required, justifications for the same etc.
Does this ring the bell? Is this the way the industry works? Any thoughts?