Category Archives: Crossing the EA Charm

April 10, 2017 · 11:17 am

What are the differences between improving the design (and operation) of a smart city, an aircraft engine, a muscle car, a large enterprise, and/or an integrated commercial global cloud services platform …all running at hyperscale?

Question: What are the differences between improving the design (and operation) of:

a smart city,
an aircraft engine,
a muscle car,
a large enterprise, and/or
an integrated commercial global cloud services platform
…all running at hyperscale?

Answer: None.

Scroll down to see the use cases; then the list of resources at the bottom of this article.

Use Case 1: Aircraft engine, and
Use Case 2: Muscle car

Figure 1. Continuous Transformation Model: Aircraft Engines and Muscle Cars

Use Case 3: Smart city,
Use Case 4: Large enterprise operating at hyperscale, and
Use Case 5: Integrated commercial global cloud services platform operating at hyperscale

Figure 2. Continuous Transformation Model: Smart Cities, Large Enterprises, and Cloud Services Platforms

Diving Deeper: #Graphitization

To go deeper, checkout #Graphitization of the Enterprise (click here) as well as the list of references below.

Figure 3. #Graphitization Continuous Transformation Model

Figure 4. Continuous Transformation Framework: Process Groups and Activities

References

Michael Herman, Blockchain Developer, Enterprise Architect and Data Scientist: #Graphitization Inventor (click here)
Continuous Transformation and Transformative Change are key principles of the Total Enterprise Architecture Model (TEAM) (click here)
To dig deeper, check out Graphitization of the Enterprise (click here)
[Enterprise Architecture, Big Data, CRM, ERP, …] Tools and Methods Don’t Generate Business Value (click here)

Best regards,

Michael Herman
Enterprise Architect and Data Scientist
Parallelspace Corporation
M: 416 524-7702
E: mwherman@parallelspace.net
B: http://hyperonomy.com
L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwherman/recent-activity/posts/
Skype: mwherman2000

Living at the intersection of Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Knowledge, and Data Science

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Data Science, Enterprise Architecture, Graphitization, How do we think, IoT, Space Flight

Tagged as aircraft engine, AWS, Azure, cloud services, Google, Hyperscale, jet engine, muscle car

February 28, 2017 · 11:25 am

Michael Herman: Award-winning Author, Invited Speaker, Illustrator, and Trainer

Feel free to contact me at:

Michael Herman
mwherman@parallelspace.net
(416) 524-7702

PARTIAL PORTFOLIO

All of the publications below are full-length white papers or technical notes – unless noted otherwise (e.g. presentations, training materials, online product help).

Tzunami K-Wise Deployer

Client: Tzunami

Tzunami Inc. Evaluation Guide: Using K-Wise Deployer™ for Rapid Content Migration into Microsoft SharePoint Products and Technologies (50 pages)

#Graphitization of ArchiMate: Getting MMOR from ArchiMate using the ModelMate Master Online Repository

MMOR (pronounced “more”) is an online, queryable version of an updated, corrected version of the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix – originally described in the article The Graphitization of ArchiMate.

The source data for MMOR is based on Gerben Wierda‘s recent (February 2017) blog article The ArchiMate 3.0 Relations Table….

This article provides an overview – a teaser, actually. I’m working on a more in-depth description that I’ll publish next week. HINT: If you poke around on hyperonomy.com – digital intelligence, you’ll find the “WIP” draft.

Logging into MMOR (pronounced “more”)

MMOR Url: http://hobby-icgaeohcoeaggbkeabhldpol.dbs.graphenedb.com:24789/browser/
MMOR Username: ModelMate_Master_Datasets10
MMOR Password: YqeZAH4ODEJqglkEsK5p

The above app url, username and password provide you with read-only access to the MMOR graph database – you can’t hurt anything. Please go ahead and try it using some of the sample queries I’ve documented below.

CAVEAT: There are zero guarantees on my part in terms of the availability, reliability, or performance of this hosted solution. I’ll be making changes with no advance notice.

Running Queries

To run a query, follow these steps:

Connect to the MMOR app and login (see above)
Copy & paste each query (one at a time) into the query box (next to the ‘$’ sign)
Click the “Play” icon to run the query

Figure 1. Copy & paste each query (one at a time) – then click Play (click to enlarge)

TIP: After you’ve run your first query, in the bottom-right corner of the visualization, turn Auto-Complete to the Off position by clicking on the icon.

Figure 2. TIP: Turn Auto-Complete to the Off position

Sample Query A: Node Prototype, Technology Landscape View

Return and visualize the relations in the MMOR where the source element is a Node and the (source and) target elements are members of the Technology domain, both Core as well as Derived relations are included, and the source and target elements are different (i.e. ignore self-referencing element relations).

MATCH path = (source:ElementProtoype_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup) 
            -[relation]->
             (target:ElementProtoype_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup)
WHERE source.DomainQualifiedLabel IN ["TechnologyDomain_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup"]
AND   target.DomainQualifiedLabel IN ["TechnologyDomain_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup"]
AND   type(relation) IN ["CoreRelation_ModelMate30_Parallelspace",
                         "DerivedRelation_ModelMate30_Parallelspace"]
AND   source.QualifiedName <> target.QualifiedName
AND   source.QualifiedName = "Node_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup"
RETURN path

NOTE: In the above Cypher Query Language (CQL) query, note the use of the following ModelMate Namespace Naming Standard used for:

Element prototype types on the source and target elements (e.g. ElementPrototype_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup, Node_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup)
Each element’s domain (e.g. TechnologyDomain_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup)
Categorizing relations (e.g. CoreRelation_ModelMate30_Parallelspace, DerivedRelation_ModelMate30_Parallelspace)

The general format used for the ModelMate Namespace Naming Standard is:

[typeclassname]_[typeclasscategory]_[typeclassoriginatingbody]

e.g. ApplicationComponent_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup

Figure 3. Sample Query A: Results (click to enlarge)

NOTE: The black arcs are Core relations; the red arcs are Derived relations. In the current version of the MMOR, there’s approximately an order of magnitude more Derived relations vs. Core relations.

NOTE: In Figure 3, note the use the ModelMate convention for naming relations based on a specific verb taxonomy that immeasurably improves the readability, a Stakeholders’ opportunities for further reflection and refinement, and the composability of higher-level Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) for enterprise architecture based on using ArchiMate as a lower-level intermediate language:

Sample Query B: Core Relations, All Domains Landscape View

Return and visualize all of the Core relations in the MMOR.

MATCH path = (source) 
            -[relation:CoreRelation_ModelMate30_Parallelspace]-> 
             (target)
WHERE id(source) <> id(target) 
RETURN path

Figure 4. Sample Query B: Results (click to enlarge)

NOTE: It may look pretty but it’s not very useful from a functional perspective. To fix this, try grabbing the Passive Structure elements and dragging them to the left; the Active Structure elements, moving them to the right. The Behavior elements can be left in the middle. They will act as if they are connected to the Passive and Active Structure elements by elastics or springs. You can also manually position the Behavior elements similar to what you did with the Structure elements. Go ahead and try it for yourself.

There are several additional visualization tools in the market that work substantially better than the default browser app that ships with the Neo4j graph database. Check out this page: Graph Visualization for Neo4j. Linkurious is one of my favorite graph visualization apps.

Sample Query C: All Elements Prototypes, Statistical Matrix

Return and display a statistical matrix describing the element prototypes in the MMOR.

MATCH (source), (target)
WHERE id(source) <> id(target)
RETURN DISTINCT labels(source), count(*) AS Count,
avg(size(keys(source))) as AvgPropertyCount,
min(size(keys(source))) as MinPropertyCount,
max(size(keys(source))) as MaxPropertyCount,
avg(size((source)-[]->(target))) as AvgRelationsCount,
min(size((source)-[]->(target))) as MinRelationsCount,
max(size((source)-[]->(target))) as MaxRelationsCount

Figure 5. Sample Query C: Results (click to enlarge)

NOTE: The use of multiple Cypher Query Language (CQL) labels to support multiple-inheritance at the element prototype level. For example, using the first row of data in Figure 5:

the generic element prototype (i.e. Element_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup),
ArchiMate domain (layer) type (e.g. MotivationDomain_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup), and
ArchiMate aspect type (e.g. MeaningAndValueAspect_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup);
in addition to the element’s specific ArchiMate prototype (e.g. Value_ArchiMate30_TheOpenGroup).

Downloadable Files

You can also download file-based versions of the MMOR Master Datasets from GitHub in the following file formats:

CSV text file
Microsoft Excel workbook
Microsoft Access database
Neo4j Cypher Query Language (CQL) file.

In addition, there is a ZIP file containing all 4 file formats.

https://github.com/mwherman2000/ModelMate30_Parallelspace/tree/master/Parallelspace_ModelMate_MasterDataset_Complete10

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Master Data Management, Master Metadata Management, ModelMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for Languages, The Open Group

Tagged as ArchiMate, cypher, MMOR, ModelMate Master Online Repository, Neo4j

February 8, 2017 · 4:44 pm

Crossing the EA Chasm: #Graphitization of ArchiMate 3.0 – Iteration 2

First Draft: April 5, 2017

This article documents a number of parallel efforts to improve the usability, understandability, utility, and correctness of the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. In particular, this article extends a well-received previous article Crossing the EA Chasm: Graphitization of ArchiMate 3.0 – Iteration 1 where I posed the question:

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an authoritative reference for ArchiMate 3.0, more specifically, a repository for the enterprise architecture language‘s elements and relationship matrix, that is queryable.

This article documents the current iteration of the ModelMate project, Iteration 2, whose goal is to create an improved queryable repository for a corrected version of relationship matrix (more correct relative to the Appendix B tables in the current ArchiMate 3.0 Specification).

Background

Over the past few months, I’ve written several articles commenting on the current state of the ArchiMate language for Enterprise Architecture including:

In addition, there are almost weekly postings about usability issues or errors with the Specification in the Linkedin ArchiMate group, the GitHub Archi issues log, LinkedIn Pulse, and the Google ArchiMate group; as well as other forums [1][2].

The recent effort, called the ModelMate project, is a focused effort to create a more broadly applicable, usable, useful, ArchiMate-based, extensible language environment for enterprise architecture as described in these 4 articles:

Current Scenario

The current scenario is highlighted by the following points taken from the above references:

“[People should be] encouraged to try to model these examples for yourself: to start learning how to “think in ArchiMate” as your second or third written language.” The way the ArchiMate language is currently designed and, more importantly, described makes this difficult.
In an abstract sense, the extension of the ArchiMate language is supported but, in reality, few if any broadly adopted extensions have appeared in the market. A better approach is described here: Crossing the EA Chasm: ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?
There is no single, authoritative, machine-readable version of the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix; let alone one that is easily accessible and queryable.
The Open Group’s insistence on using abstract terminology to name element types and relation types presents users with additional challenges.

Problem Description

At a data level, the root causes of the problems with the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix in Appendix B of the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification include:

No machine-readable version of the tables are available for external validation for correctness
The tables contain errors in the approximately 11,000 relations that are represented in the tables. Is is estimated that there are few hundred to a few thousand errors present in the current ArchiMate 3.0 tables
The tables contain all possible (valid) relations but do not differentiate between Core relations and Derived (non-Core) relations.

All three issues are critical for the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification and these tables to be trusted and more generally useful.

In addition, the Derived Relation Derivation Algorithm has never been published by The Open Group. Attempts to create an alternative algorithm have highlighted that the text of the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification is neither consistent nor complete when it comes to identifying the set of Core Relations and a correct and complete Derviation Algorithm.

Lastly, when dealing with 1000+ Core Relations and several thousand Derived Relations (8000-9000 or more), it’s difficult to analyze and visualize what the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix looks like in total, or when subdivided by Domain (Layer) or Aspect, or when focused on a specific element prototype (e.g. Node).

Solution Overview

The goal of this solution is to publish a very detailed, rich, unnormalized version of the latest and greatest ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix in multiple formats; including:

CSV text file
Microsoft Excel workbook
Microsoft Access database
Neo4j Cypher Query Language (CQL) queryable graph database file

When loaded into Microsoft Excel, the CSV and Microsoft Excel workbook format files appear as shown in Figure 1 (below).

Figure 1. ModelMate Master Datasets: Excel 2016 and CSV File Formats

The Microsoft Excel (and CSV) format file can also be used with the Microsoft Excel Web App (Figure 2) and the Microsoft Excel format can be used to create custom SharePoint lists (Figure 3).

Figure 2. ModelMate Master Datasets: Excel 2016 format file in MIcrosoft Excel Web App

Figure 3. ModelMate Master Datasets: Custom SharePoint List created from Imported Excel 2016 Format File

When loaded into Microsoft Access, the Microsoft Access database format files appear as shown in Figure 4 (below).

Figure 4. ModelMate Master Datasets: MS Access Database file format

To create a queryable graph database version of the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship tables (in effect, the entire ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel), the Cypher Query Language (CQL) file depicted in Figure 5. was created.

Figure 5. ModelMate Master Datasets: Neo4j CQL File

Figure 6 is an example of the output from a single line CQL query run against the ArchiMate 3.0 graph database (implemented using Neo4j). If you look closely at the CQL statement at the top of this screen shot (click Figure 6. to enlarge it), you’ll see that it is selecting all of the relationships across all of the element prototypes in the Technology/Infrastructure domain of the ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel that connect to the Node element prototype.

Figure 6. ModelMate Master Datasets: Graph Mining Analysis Sample

File Downloads

You can download the files referred to in this article from the GitHub repository. Click here to download the ModelMate Master Datasets files.

In addition, there is a Neo4j Cypher Query Language (CQL) file available for download that will ingest all of the element prototypes and relations into a graph database using a single Neo4j shell invocation. From the Windows Powershell or Windows Command Prompt, use:

“C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.8.0_91\bin\java.exe” -classpath “C:\Program Files\Neo4j CE 3.0.6\bin\neo4j-desktop-3.0.6.jar” org.neo4j.shell.StartClient -c dump > MasterDataSet.cql

Lastly, there is Microsoft Access 2016 database version of the CSV file that is available for download if you prefer using Microsoft Access SQL queries or graphical SQL queries.

Solution Details

Below is a copy of the workflow and dataflow used to create the Parallelspace ModelMate Master Datasets. It’s not as messy as it looks – it’s true mashup and a valuable one at that. It’s primarily the result of the truly ad-hoc collaboration between 3 enterprise architecture professionals with an interesting mix of diverse goals (Gerben Wierda, Ed Roberts and myself); each of us with our own set of preferred development technologies and goals (with Excel being the greatest common denominator (GCD)).

Figure 7. ArchiMate 3.0 Relationship Matrix Resolution Process

The numbered steps in Figure 7. are explained below:

Data Sources. There are many sources of information about the ArchiMate relationship matrix in addition to the Appendix B tables in the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. The list in Figure 7. is a fairly complete. Key data sources include the GitHub Archi repository for the most widely used ArchiMate modeling tool for enterprise architecture and Gerben Wierda’s multiple ArchiMate resources publishing under the Mastering ArchiMate brand.

“MA Core Set” Spreadsheet. Wierda worked to consolidate various data sources from Step 1 above to create the “MA Core Set” Mastering ArchiMate relationship matrix (plus a number of other relationship matrices that Wierda used for comparative analysis and troubleshooting purposes). The “MA Core Set” represents the “seed” or Core Set of (non-derived) ArchiMate relations. Wierda created this Core Set over several iterations reviewing the word-for-word text of the Specification, the inheritance diagrams, as well as incorporating his extensive practical knowledge and experience documenting ArchiMate in the book entitled Mastering ArchiMate – Edition II.

The “MA Core Set” tab in the AllowedRelationsArchiMate30VBA-public.xlsm Excel spreadsheet also includes additional columns that are reserved for calculating and storing an intermediate 3-column, reverse-transposed version of the relationship matrix (Step 3 below).

CreatePrologList() Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) Macro: This macro is used to perform the actual reverse-transposition of the “MA Core Set” relationship matrix into the 3-column format which including a column for storing the relation(source,target) 3-tuple formatted data (in Prolog format). The 2-D relationship matrix is the input to the macro (along with some additional master data tables that are part of the VBA code). The 3-tuples are the essential output of the VBA macro (stored “in-place” in the first 3 columns of the spreadsheet).

CoreSet.prolog File. To proceed through to the next step of the workflow, the Prolog format data is copied from the spreadsheet and pasted into a plain text file called CoreSet.prolog, for example (or any other filename you would like to use).

Derivaton.py Python Script and outfile.csv. The Derivation.py script contains is the “magic sauce”. Written by Wierda, Derivation.py reads the CoreSet.prolog file and executes a complex and detailed algorithm to expand the Core Set of ArchiMate relations read from the CoreSet.prolog file into a number of alternative output formats, including CSV and Prolog formats.

To support the ModelMate project, a version of Derivation.py was modified to output a number of additional CSV columns (outfile.csv). Columns:

SourceElement
TargetElement
Relation
RelativeStrength
IsInputRelation
StandardVersion
ScriptVersion

Outfile.xml File. Steps 6 and 7 are part of a sequence of activities that were used to create a relationships.xml file that is compatible with the relationship configuration requirements of the Archi modeling tool. This process, originally implemented by Ed Roberts, owner of Dallas-based Elparazim, uses Excel to load the outfile.csv save it out as an outfile.xml file.

For Step 7, Ed Roberts wrote an XSL Transform script that when applied to the outfile.xml file creates the Archi-compatible relationship.xml that is used by the Archi model to automatically configure the element-element relations supported in a given version of Archi (e.g. Archi 4.0).

Steps 8-10 mark an alternative data flow created to support the needs of the ModelMate Master Datasets project.

In Step 8, the contents of the ModelMate-compatible modified CSV output from Step 5 (outfile.csv) is copy-and-pasted into the Parallelspace_ModelMate_MasterDatasets_CoreAndDerivedNN.xlsx Excel workbook (where NN is a version number).

A matrix of automated Excel functions in the Complete spreadsheet merge the elements and relations master data attributes from the Elements and Relations spreadsheet with the data from the Derived spreadsheet to compute the corresponding column values in the Complete spreadsheet. Think of the Complete spreadsheet as a super-unnormalized version of the relationship matrix. The InInputRelation column values indicate whether a specific relation (and it’s companion source and target elements) are Core relations or Derived relations.

The workbook contains 4 spreadsheets (Derived, Complete, Elements, and Relations):

Derived spreadsheet – copy-and-pasted version of the outfile.csv from Step 4. The “input” spreadsheet.
Columns:
1. SourceElement
2. TargetElement
3. Relation
4. RelativeStrength
5. IsInputRelation
6. StandardVersion
7. ScriptVersion
Complete spreadsheet – leverages the master data in the Elements and Relations tabs to expand the columns in the Derived spreadsheet to include additional metadata property columns for the source and target elements as well as the relations. The “output” spreadsheet that will be saved as a CSV file in Step. 9.
Columns:
1. SourceElement
2. TargetElement
3. Relation
4. RelativeStrength
5. IsInputRelation
6. StandardVersion
7. ScriptVersion
8. RelationName
9. RelationLabel
10. RelationQualifiedLabel
11. RelationForwardVerbLabel
12. RelationReverseVerbLabel
13. RelationQualifiedForwardVerbLabel
14. RelationQualifiedReverseVerbLabel
15. SourceName
16. SourceLabel
17. SourceQualifiedLabel
18. TargetName
19. TargetLabel
20. TargetQualifiedLabel
21. SourceDomainName
22. SourceDomainLabel
23. SourceDomainQualifiedLabel
24. SourceAspectName
25. SourceAspectLabel
26. SourceAspectQualifiedLabel
27. TargetDomainName
28. TargetDomainLabel
29. TargetDomainQualifiedLabel
30. TargetAspectName
31. TargetAspectLabel
32. TargetAspectQualifiedLabel
Elements spreadsheet – master data attributes and values for each element prototype.
Columns:
1. ElementCode
2. ElementLabel
3. ElementName
4. ElementQualifiedLabel
5. DomainName
6. DomainLabel
7. DomainQualifiedLabel
8. AspectName
9. AspectLabel AspectQualifiedLabel
Relations spreadsheet – master data attributes and values for each relation prototype.
Columns:
1. RelationCode
2. RelationName
3. RelationQualifiedLabel
4. RelationForwardVerb
5. RelationQualifiedForwardVerb
6. RelationReverseVerb
7. RelationQualifiedReverseLabel

In Step 9, columns 4-32 of the Complete spreadsheet are saved as a separate CSV format file (using the same versioned file name as the parent workbook but with a suffix of .csv).

Also considered part of Step 9, the CSV file is imported into an empty Microsoft Access database. The datatype of the InInputRelation is changed to be a Yes/No (boolean) field. The database file is given the same name as the CSV file but with a suffix of .accdb.

Step 10 uses a series of Cypher Query Language (CQL) script files to create and populate a Neo4j graph database – to enable simple but powerful ad-hoc queries against the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship tables/metamodel.

Step 10.1. Merge all of Source and Target Element Prototypes

Script 1. Merge Source and Target Element Prototypes

Step 10.2. Label Elements with Element, Domain and Aspect Names

Script 2. Label Elements with Element, Domain and Aspect Names

Step 10.3 Create the Metamodel Relationships

TODO

Results

Use Cases

This section documents the results of the following use cases (queries against the Neo4j graph model):

All Business domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationships
All Core relationships where the source element prototype is from the Business domain
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Business domain
All Application domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationships
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Application domain
All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology/Infrastructure domain
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are identical to each other
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing)
All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing)
All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and connected to the Node element prototype
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Passive Structure aspect
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Active Structure aspect
All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Behavior aspect

Use Case Results

Click on any of the figures to enlarge them in a separate browser tab.

Business Domain Use Case Results

Use Case 1: All Business domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationshipsUse Cases

Figure 8. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all element prototypes in the Business domain; more specifically, where both the source and target element prototypes are in the Business domain.

Figure 8. All Business domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationships

Use Case 2: All Core relationships where the source element prototype is from the Business domain

Figure 9. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where the source element prototype is from the Business domain.

Figure 9. All Core relationships where the source element prototype is from the Business domain

Use Case 3: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Business domain

Figure 10. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Business domain.

Figure 10. All Core relationships where the source element prototype is from the Business domain

Application Domain Use Case Results

Use Case 4: All Application domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationships

Figure 11. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all element prototypes in the Application domain; more specifically, where both the source and target element prototypes are in the Application domain.

Figure 11. All Application domain source and target element prototypes and all related Core and Derived relationships

Use Case 5: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Application domain

Figure 12. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core and Derived relationships where the source element prototype is from the Application domain.

Figure 12. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Application domain

Technology Domain Use Case Results

Use Case 6: All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology/Infrastructure domain

Figure 13. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology/Infrastructure domain.

Figure 13. All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology/Infrastructure domain

Use Case 7: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain

Figure 14. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain.

Figure 14. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain

Use Case 8: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are identical to each other

Figure 15. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are identical to each other.

Figure 15. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and identical to each other

Use Case 9: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing)

Figure 16. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing).

Figure 16. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and different from each other (non-self referencing)

Use Case 10: All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing)

Figure 17. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core and Derived relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing).

Figure 17. All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are different from each other (non-self referencing)

Use Case 11: All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and connected to the Node element prototype

Figure 18. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core and Derived relationships where both the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and are connected to the Node element prototype.

Figure 18. All Core and Derived relationships where the source and target element prototypes are from the Technology domain and connected to the Node element prototype

Aspects Use Case Results: Passive Structure, Active Structure, Behavior

Use Case 12: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Passive Structure aspect

Figure 19. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Passive Structure aspect.

Figure 19. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Passive Structure aspect

Use Case 13: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Active Structure aspect

Figure 20. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Active Structure aspect.

Figure 20. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Active Structure aspect

Use Case 14: All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Behavior aspect

Figure 21. is the result of an ad-hoc CQL query against all Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Behavior aspect.

Figure 21. All Core relationships where the source and target element prototypes belong to the Behavior aspect

Feedback

Please add your comments and feedback to the end of this article.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Crossing the EA Charm, Definitions, Domain Specification Languages (DSL), Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, graph database, Graphitization, ModelMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for Languages, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM), The Open Group

Tagged as Archi, ArchiMate, Graphitization

January 27, 2017 · 2:58 pm

Crossing the EA Chasm: ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?

It is the end of January 2017 and, recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the LinkedIn ArchiMate group about the ArchiMate language for enterprise architecture (EA), its “idioms”, usability, adoption, etc.

In addition, in the article Crossing the EA Chasm: Reflections on the Current State of ArchiMate, I asked some questions related to ArchiMate’s purpose and whether it is adequately addressing all of enterprise architecture’s stakeholders’ needs. Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning the ArchiMate Specification is a related article.

These discussions led to this short-form question, the key topic for today:

ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?

Fixing ArchiMate

On the “fix it” side of the discussion, people will literally be working to fix the language forever. The Open Group is committed to supporting these kinds of efforts; it’s the foundation for why they exist.

But is there a better, compatible approach? I think there is.

Re-purposing ArchiMate

As a starter, let’s look at the evolution of and technology hierarchy that supports high-level programming languages. Pick your favorite language. Many of you will choose Java; I’m a C# person. (It doesn’t really matter.)

Before the advent of managed, cross-platform execution environments (like the Java VM and the .NET Runtime that provide memory management and garbage collection, advanced exception management, data protection, secure execution contexts, etc.), prior languages like C and C++ followed a simple compilation model as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. C/C++ Compilation Model

This scenario is synonymous with the current lower-level language support available in ArchiMate 3.0. There’s effectively one language level and that’s all you have.

The C# (.NET) compilation model ups the ante by introducing a cross-platform intermediate language (Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL)) as shown in Figure 2. Java achieves something similar using Java bytecode.

Figure 2. C# Compilation Model: Role of the Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL)

Re-purposing ArchiMate as a Lower-Level Intermediate EA Language

In an approach similar to the way the .NET Framework uses MSIL, ArchiMate can be re-purposed as the lower-level intermediate language for creating higher-level EA languages.

The article Modeling a Company and Its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors & Roles: Proposals, Wishes & Dreams is a small but real-life, practical example of how this can be executed to create a new EA language for describing Business Organizations (as illustrated below in Figure 3).

Figure 3. Business Organization EA Language, an ArchiMate 3.0 Specialization

This approach more easily and more formally supports the concept of domain-specific languages (DSLs) for enterprise architecture.

As The Open Group moves ArchiMate forward, the published higher-level EA languages can incrementally adopt the new changes – in the same way the Java JIT compilers and Microsoft JIT compilers are updated to adopt new instruction sets from Intel or AMD.

Making It Real

The Archi modeling tool can ~~easily~~ be adapted to serve as the reference implementation for these new EA languages. This is relatively easy to accomplish because all of the ArchiMate relationships remain the same; and, at least initially, it’s ~~simply~~ a matter of extending Archi’s existing ArchiMate elements with families of new elements that address the scope of each new EA DSL. It is a SMOP.

More food for thought… Please post your comments below.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

4 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Crossing the EA Charm, Domain Specification Languages (DSL), Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, The Open Group

Tagged as ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Domain Specific Languages, DSL, ModelMate, MSIL

January 25, 2017 · 4:39 pm

Modeling a Company and Its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors & Roles: Proposals, Wishes & Dreams

This article presents some new approaches for modeling answers to the following frequently asked question:

How do I model X in ArchiMate?

NOTE: You are encouraged to try to model these examples for yourself: to start learning how to “think in ArchiMate” as your second or third written language. Archi is a great free tool for learning the ArchiMate language. You can download the Archi .archimate file containing the model used for this article from here. You can download the latest version of the Archi 4.0 modeling tool from here (which includes full support for the ArchiMate 3.0 language).

ArchiMate 3.0 is used as the baseline enterprise architecture modeling language for this discussion; especially the new Grouping element.

The Proposals

There are 2 new proposals described in this article: one more generic and one more specific.

Proposal 1: A new (general) approach for visually presenting answers to the question “How do I model X in ArchiMate?” using a metamodel-level reference model modeling strategy
Proposal 2: A specific approach (reference model) for modeling a Company and its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors, etc. and their Roles.

The second proposal is an example or use case for the former.

Proposal 1: Modeling of Best Practice Modeling Patterns

Proposal 1 is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These figures illustrate a general approach for modeling and visually presenting answers to the question “How do I model X in ArchiMate?”.

Rather than provide simple, less-informative, textual answers such as “use Business Collaborations to model Companies” or in ArchiMate 3.0, “use Groupings to model Companies”, why not:

Leverage Specialization relationships to model, name, and visually illustrate, in these examples, alternative representations of a Company element
From a presentation perspective, place the new best practices modeling pattern on the left – side-by-side – with the portion of the applicable elements of the base-level ArchiMate metamodel on the right

as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

NOTE: Proposal 1 is illustrated with 2 examples. The merits of the individual examples are discussed below in Proposal 2. The comparison of these 2 examples is not part of Proposal 1.

Figure 1. Metamodel-level Reference Model for a Company using Business Collaboration

Figure 2. Metamodel-level Reference Model for a Company using Grouping

Proposal 2: Specific approach (reference model) for modeling a Company

Proposal 2 asks the question: Of the 2 options presented above (or any additional alternative options), which option represents a best practice reference model for modeling a Company and its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors, etc. and their Roles.

The only tangible difference between the modeling strategy in Figure 1 vs. Figure 2 is:

Figure 1 derives Business Organization from Business Collaboration
Figure 2 derives Business Organization from Grouping (a new element introduced in ArchiMate 3.0)

These choices, in turn, have a secondary effect in terms of the valid set of relationships that can be used to compose or aggregate the elements that comprise a Business Organization.

To aid your consideration, Figure 3 provides a more concrete example using the second option: using Groupings to represent Companies (my current preferred solution).

NOTE: The goal of these models is to model the active structure of a Business Organization which excludes concepts like Business Processes and Business Services.

Figure 3. Proposal 2 Example: Bridgewater Associates

What do you think?

Please add your comments, thoughts, and questions below.

Best regards,

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

8 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Crossing the EA Charm, Definitions, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Graphitization, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate

Tagged as ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Grouping, ModelMate, proposal, specialization

January 22, 2017 · 11:55 am

RE: Managing Master Data With ArchiMate

In the Linkedin ArchiMate group, Gunther BONNARD recently asked the following question (January 20, 2017 Inauguration Day):

Managing Master Data With ArchiMate

I am looking for an easy way to manage Master Data (Business Objects) with ArchiMate. I was wondering which association to use to link MD with the business capabilities in charge (“accountable”) of the MD and the same problem to link data object that realize the MD with the application (that create the MD). …any ideas?

…with the following additional clarifications:

How can I model that a business object “belongs” to a capability or a data object is under the responsibility of an application component? I have this issue because I need to manage what is the “master” of the data (without using functions) …

For example, I would like to model that:
– the business object Client belong to the business capabilities CRM
– the application SalesForce is the master of the data object Client …

What follows is more of an approach than a definitive answer. Please add your feedback, questions, and comments at the bottom of this article.

Start by exploring the context of the question …a simple business analysis task. What is the scope of what Gunther is talking about? …key concepts or objects, important relationships, etc.
Ask clarifying questions.
Start sketching the context in ArchiMate. “Learn to think in the ArchiMate language” …like learning to think in a second or third language. (Archi makes this easy to do or use a commercial modeling tool.)
Go beyond the boundaries of the immediate problem to help ensure you understand the broader context. It will make your eventual answer more correct and increase its longevity and utility.
- Are you answering the right question?
- Think of physical or real-life examples. Then create higher-level abstractions.
Your sketch doesn’t have to be perfect or “correct”. It needs to be what you need it to be to help you think about and answer your question.
It is the “thought process” that is forced to take place while you are creating your sketch that is the most important activity of the overall process (like whenever you’re forced to write something down on paper or on your device).

Here’s the ArchiMate 2.1 sketch I came up with:

Figure 1. Master Data Management: Ownership and Responsibilities (Sketch 1)

Don’t work on your sketch for “days”; at most an hour or a couple hours. That’s why it’s called a sketch.

My Thought Process

These are the questions and notes that came to mind while I worked on the above sketch:

Need to maintain clarity between the concepts of Master Data and Master Data Definitions (aka Master Data Management and Master Metadata Management, respectively). Gunther is asking about Master Data in his posting – not Master Data Definitions (even though they are closely related). I should have asked a clarifying question about this to get confirmation.
Typically, Salesforce applications are not traditional applications built by traditional application and technology roles BUT for this example, we’ll assume they are.
Salesforce applications are not Software Components. They are configuration artifacts stored in and processed by the Salesforce platform to realize Application Functions (and Application Services) and custom Data Objects.
Salesforce has a strong underlying concept of Master Metadata Management (even if they don’t use this term). It’s the core of the platform (IMHO).
Customer is one class of Master Data data. “Customer 123” is a Master Data data instance. Create this sketch using classes of Master Data data – not instances (unless you’re creating a secondary view to show an example of Customer Master Data data instance).
Business Roles are associated with Business Capabilities
- which in turn aggregate Business Processes
- that access Business Objects
- “ArchiMate 101”
Revisit the question while you’re creating the sketch: Should Business Capabilities own Master Data? My answer to this question was: No. I think Business Capabilities can be associated with classes of Master Data.
I believe Business Roles (and Business Actors assigned to these roles) should own Master Data. Master Data is created and managed by Business Processes but it is not owned by these Business Processes. I believe this contradicts the definition of (or purpose for) having Master Data.
Classes of Master Data are defined by Master Data Definitions. Sketch these as Technology Artifacts UNLESS you are trying to model a Master Data Management/Master Metadata Management application. If you’re doing the latter, no problem but I don’t think that this is directly related to Gunter’s original question.
Modeling a Salesforce “Org” as a Software Component is a bit of a stretch but it’s the best choice I could come up with. Salesforce Org’s aren’t software.
The Business Capabilities and Business Roles you choose (and classes of Master Data) and their interrelationships will be specific to a particular company.

Once you’re happy with your detailed sketch, then you can use ArchiMate derivation to work backwards to create more focused (smaller) views that more specifically illustrate the answer(s) to your question.

If you want to do a full RACI treatment, then consider an approach like the one illustrated in this article: ARMs for Metadata-Driven LOB apps: SharePoint 2013/SharePoint 2016.

Homework: Data Lakes

What if Customer was an aggregated, virtual Master Data class drawn from multiple applications and data sources both inside and outside your organization? …rather than a single data source or application? How would you represent this in your ArchiMate sketch?

That’s my 2 cents (Canadian). 🙂

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Master Data Management, Master Metadata Management, Salesforce

Tagged as ArchiMate, Data Lake, Master Data Management, Master Metadata Management, metadata, Salesforce

January 17, 2017 · 11:44 am

Crossing the EA Chasm: #Graphitization of ArchiMate 3.0 – Iteration 1

While working on a new series of projects and articles on #graphitization I pondered the following question:

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an authoritative reference for ArchiMate 3.0, more specifically, a repository for the enterprise architecture language‘s elements and relationship matrix, that is queryable.

Queryable being the keyword. This article describes the ArchiMate Graphitization Project.

Background

“The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.”
[Andrew S. Tanenbaum]

Today, there are at least 4 authoritative, semi-authoritative, or at least machine-readable, versions of the ArchiMate 3.0 relationship matrix:

The 4 “Appendix B Tables” in Appendix B of the ArchiMate 3.0 Specification
The “relationships.xml” file in the Archi [4.0] github repository (which also includes Issue #164 that is being used to track problems in the relationships.xml file as well as the Appendix B Tables)
Gerben Wierda‘s “ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel PDF“
ARKWRT, Colin Coate‘s “CLI (command-line interface) tool that provides a partial implementation of the ArchiMate 2.1 [and 3.0] Specification”

The first step in the ArchiMate Graphitization Project was to consolidate and make consistent these 4 data sources; or rather, attempt to consolidate and make them consistent. The Appendix B Tables are not very usable (i.e. not machine-readable in their current form) and hence, can only be used as a secondary, passive reference. These tables are also known to have some bugs which are expected to be fixed in the next release of the ArchiMate Specification.

The most reliable, most usable, and most complete data source is the Archi 4.0 project’s relationships.xml file; defining 11,000+ relationships. This file’s only drawback is that it includes all relationships – both Derived as well as the Core Subset – and does not have any tags or other markings to identify the Core relations; regardless, this file proved to be exceedingly valuable. The Appendix B Tables suffer from this same problem: no tagging to help identify the Core relationships.

Gerben Wierda’s ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel PDF is the best and internationally renown reference for the most commonly used ArchiMate relationships (what I think of as the ArciMate Core Subset). Gerben has done an excellent job of documenting these for ArchiMate 2.1, and now, ArchiMate 3.0. Using his PDF data, we were able to troubleshoot a number of missing as well as extra relationships across all 4 data sources [Thank you Gerben].

Colin Coate’s ARKWRT is also an excellent tool. I learned about Colin’s tool too late into my project cycle to use it; regardless, Colin has also been very helpful based on his deep knowledge of the ArchiMate specifications.

For this iteration of the ArchiMate Graphitization Project, I combined the relationship.xml data with Gerben’s PDF data. I was careful to tag each element and relation with its data source(s). The Appendix B Tables were used as a secondary reference for verification purposes.

Graphitizing the ArchiMate Relationship Table

I won’t go into detail about all the steps but I do want to emphasize that this was a very straightforward process once I had some good data – as in any Data Science project. The relationships.xml file is well formed and opened nicely in Excel 2016 (as well as earlier versions of Excel no doubt). It was simple to save it out as a CSV file (after some preformatting to create namespaces for the AchiMate element and relationship names). Here’s a sample that resembles what the final CSV file looked like before ingesting it into Neo4j graph database (click the figure below to enlarge it).

The relationship naming scheme is based on the ModelMate Verbs notation described in the article Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning ArchiMate 3.0 Relations as Verbs.

Ingesting the CSV file, creating the graph nodes, labeling them based on ArchiMate element type (i.e. ModelMate Verb), and finally, creating the relationships were also pretty easy to accomplish using the Cypher language. Here’s the actual query:

There were a couple of additional steps such as assigning weights (strengths) to each of the relationships based on the relationship type, tagging relations with a data source code, etc. that were part of the overall process.

Recreating a Rendering of Gerben’s PDF

The biggest challenge for the project was to see how easy it would be to recreate something that looked similar to Gerben’s ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel PDF. Here’s a copy of the actual Cypher query. It’s not optimized but only takes a few seconds to run.

The highlighted clauses encode the margin notes on page 1 of Gerben’s PDF. The unhighlighted clauses at the bottom (that refer to Strength) reduce the multiple relations-per-element-pair returned by the first half of the query to a single relation per distinct element-pair (based on the relative weight or strength of the relationships for each pair of elements).

The initial graph looked like this:

Because all of the elements are connected together with relations that act like springs, it took only a couple minutes to manually produce this layout (very similar to page 1 of Gerben’s PDF):

More importantly, I can now answer questions like:

Show me how Nodes are connected to Products 
using only Core Subset relationships
using 2 hops
in the ArchiMate 3.0 metamodel

Please post your feedback, questions, and comments below.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

3 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Data Science, graph database, Graphitization, Master Metadata Management, ModelMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for Languages

Tagged as ArchiMate, Graphitization

January 13, 2017 · 3:12 pm

Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning ArchiMate 3.0 Relations as Verbs

[Updated: February 6, 2017]

In the article Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning the ArchiMate Specification, I proposed a new architectural framework for re-visioning the current ArchiMate 3.0 Specification.

In this article, I propose using the following list of verbs to either augment or replace the existing ArchiMate relationship names in the Specification and move towards a more humane, more understandable, more usable, and more acceptable language for enterprise architecture.

Table 1. Proposed List of Verbs to Augment or Replace
the Current ArchiMate 3.0 Relationship Names

An interesting observation: Note the verbs that start with “Is*”. They appear in either the “Source-Target” (ForwardVerb) or the “Target-Source” (ReverseVerb) columns but not both for a given relationship. This wasn’t deliberate – this is just the way it turned out. Does this indicate anything about which direction is the natural direction for the relationship to point to?

What do you think of this proposal? Please post a comment below, email me, or post a reply in the LinkedIn ArchiMate group.

To learn more about the background and history of this proposal, check out:

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

3 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Business Value, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, ModelMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for Languages, The Open Group

Tagged as ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing EA Chasm, ModelMate, Relations, relationships, Verbs

January 2, 2017 · 2:25 pm

#Graphitization of the Enterprise

This article is the first in a series on #Graphitization. Click here to explore the other articles in this series.

Reprinted from #Graphitization of the Enterprise on LinkedIn.

Move beyond digitalization of the enterprise to graphitization of the enterprise. Here’s a great diagram that explains this concept. (click on the diagram to enlarge it)

Figure 1. The New Model of IT

Graphitization of not only all of your corporate information assets across all of your constituencies and stakeholders – at the data, application entity, and business object level – but also the graphitization of all of the interconnections between every business process, application system, infrastructure component, cloud service, vendor/service provider, and business role that uses, manages, or stores corporate information (Crossing the EA Chasm: Automating Enterprise Architecture Modeling #2).

Use graphitization to make your existing corporate information more available, more usable, and more informative. Graphitization enables you to “Keep Calm and Have IT Your Way“.

What is #Graphitization?

#Graphitization is a data science and enterprise architecture-inspired framework and process model for modeling, ingesting, organizing, analyzing, and visualizing any domain of endeavor by using graphs – networks of connected objects and relationships with each object and relationship annotated with additional descriptive information (metadata).

The primary applications of #Graphitization are:

System optimization,
Systems life cycle management, and
Transformative Change in resulting in positive increases in business value for the system being studied.

A system is defined as any collection of strategies, system components, assets, architectures or processes.

Using #Graphitization

Use graphitization of your organization to help close both the Enterprise Architecture Chasm and the Operational Data Chasm. See below.

Figure 2. Continuous Transformation Framework: Enterprise Architecture Chasm and Operational Data Chasm

Figure 3. Continuous Transformation Framework: Process Groups and Activities

To learn more about other applications of graphitization, check out the following articles:

Best regards and best wishes for the New Year,

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

6 Comments

Filed under continuous transformation, Crossing the EA Charm, Data Science, Digital Transformation, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Graphitization, ModelMate, Operational Data Chasm, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)

Tagged as chasm, enterprise, Enterprise Architecture, Graphitization, Keep Calm

	[OLD] Web 7.0 DIDCom… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Welcome to Web 7.0!… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on [OLD] Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Ar…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on Welcome to Web 7.0! (over…

	[OLD] Web 7.0 DIDCom… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Welcome to Web 7.0!… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Architec…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on [OLD] Web 7.0 DIDComm Agent Ar…
	Web 7.0 DIDComm Agen… on Welcome to Web 7.0! (over…

Category Archives: Crossing the EA Charm

Michael Herman: Award-winning Author, Invited Speaker, Illustrator, and Trainer

PARTIAL PORTFOLIO

Microsoft Live Communications Server

Microsoft SharePoint Products and Technologies

Microsoft Exchange Server

Metalogix Replicator for SharePoint

Microsoft “Alchemy”

Parallelspace Vulture

Tzunami K-Wise Deployer

#Graphitization of ArchiMate: Getting MMOR from ArchiMate using the ModelMate Master Online Repository

Crossing the EA Chasm: #Graphitization of ArchiMate 3.0 – Iteration 2

Crossing the EA Chasm: ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?

Modeling a Company and Its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors & Roles: Proposals, Wishes & Dreams

RE: Managing Master Data With ArchiMate

Crossing the EA Chasm: #Graphitization of ArchiMate 3.0 – Iteration 1

Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning ArchiMate 3.0 Relations as Verbs

#Graphitization of the Enterprise

Recent Posts

Categories

Meta

Archives

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

Category Archives: Crossing the EA Charm

Diving Deeper: #Graphitization

Share this:

Like this:

PARTIAL PORTFOLIO

Microsoft Live Communications Server

Microsoft SharePoint Products and Technologies

Microsoft Exchange Server

Metalogix Replicator for SharePoint

Microsoft “Alchemy”

Parallelspace Vulture

Tzunami K-Wise Deployer

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Recent Posts

Categories

Meta

Archives

Recent Comments