The paper presents results of investigations upon possible representations of architectural objects containing “architectural meaningi. Five groups of such existing representations are analyzed briefly: (1) structural EXPRESS-based definitions, (2) object EXPRESS- and IFC- based notations, (3) XML-based notations, (4) experimental ones, and (5) binary notations. The working taxonomy of the notations is presented and their shortcomings are mentioned. The potential of XML notations for CAD data has been recognized by software vendors and standard organizations all over the world. Many corporations and standardization bodies are developing XML-based notations of CAD data, focusing on interoperability problems. Some of these notations are becoming standards (aecXML, i-drop), influencing the development of all CAAD industry. There are some main groups of problems with the existing commercial standards: Lack of "open" data in its "open" context, lack of architectural meaning in commercial notations, problems with simpler intuitive standards for notation of conceptual design data in early design stages, too complex data semantics, too atomized data, and richness of the data structures. The problems are taken under consideration in order to discuss the present state of architectural standards. Nowadays architects are forced to work with semi-architectural notations, lacking their essence, i.e. lacking methods to describe elements of cultural heritage connected to geometry forms. Instead of language of architecture they deal with virtual cyber-slang.