Archimate vs modelio how to#
Archimate vs modelio mod#
Archimate vs modelio drivers#

Archimate vs modelio how to#

In fact, the Open Group and Object Management Group are both working with NATO to agree on how to efficiently exchange information between the two standards.

Since ArchiMate was designed with interoperability with other standards in mind, using both together does not pose any conceptual problems. Similarly, some detailed design viewpoints might be better articulated using the Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP), the other standard approved for use in NAF. A few viewpoints are best expressed using simple tables or grids (catalogues and matrices in TOGAF terminology), not using ArchiMate’s standard notation but based on one and the same underlying model.

One important next step is to provide ArchiMate examples for these. This is well-aligned with ArchiMate’s distinction between an architecture model’s content and its presentation in views the same model element may be present in multiple views yet depicted in different ways to address various audiences.Īll viewpoints above are described in more detail in the NAF v4 specification. Importantly, NAF v4’s use of viewpoints is information-centric it divides the framework into categories of architectural information, rather than how that information is presented (which was the NAF v3 approach). Overview of NAF v4 viewpoints (from NATO Architecture Framework v4 ) The most important use of ArchiMate in this context lies in expressing the various viewpoints prescribed by NAF v4, which are listed in the grid shown below.

Archimate vs modelio mod#

Sometimes, ArchiMate’s specialization and stereotyping features may be helpful, but the UK MOD has decided to use ArchiMate ‘straight,’ without such customizations, to facilitate the exchange of models with industry. This mapping shows that the conceptual world of ArchiMate is sufficient to express the needs of the defence domain. A full table of terms would be far too large (and too boring) for a blog post, but the table below gives you an impression of corresponding terms.īusiness Interaction or Flow relationship (depending on context)īusiness Actor (or Business Collaboration) However, these differences can largely be overcome by a straightforward mapping of terms. In addition, terminology in the defence domain is sometimes different from that in, say, government or finance. ArchiMate was developed for, with, and by organizations in the civil sector. That does not mean that it is a complete 1-to-1 fit. Previously, we outlined how ArchiMate has evolved to a point where its concepts cover all salient aspects of enterprise architecture in the defence domain. – Kevin Wallis (MOD ISS) & Marc Lankhorst (BiZZdesign) In this final instalment, we discuss the work that still needs to be done for using ArchiMate in the context of NAF v4.

Archimate vs modelio drivers#

In the previous instalments in this series, we discussed common drivers for architecture in defence and industry, commonalities between the architecture practice in defence and the civil sector, and why the ArchiMate language was chosen as a recommended standard for expressing architectures in the NATO Architecture Framework v4. NATO Architecture Framework & ArchiMate: Work To Be Done for NAF & ArchiMate in Defence