Author Topic: ControlFlow not bi-directional  (Read 413 times)

Sunshine

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +21/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ControlFlow not bi-directional
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2017, 10:05:41 am »
FWIW, on advice from the Sparxians, we have decided to use InfromationFlow as the base relationships type for an ArchiMate "Flow" in our MDG (as opposed to the supplied ControlFlow).   Works a treat!

Paolo
One of the benefits of creating your own MDG. I did the same thing for my ArchiMate based MDG.

Archimate used to be plain wrong in the way they interpreted the direction and the placement of roles in their own metamodel.
I've seen that this has been improved in the latest version of the specs (3.0) but it makes me doubt the ability of meta-model makers if they make these kind of rooky mistakes in what should be a highly consistent and QA-ed meta-model.

In general my opinion is that the quality of the specifications of Archimate is far below the quality of something like UML or BPMN. Mostly because of the vagueness (e.g. whats the difference between a Business Function and Business Service, good luck figuring that out using only the Archimate specifications) and because they basically allow anything to be connected to anything else without defining a meaning to that link.

Geert

Yeah I totally agree I've been using ArchiMate Notation for close to 10 years before there was a spec. and have to use some artistic licence with its interpretation. If only they'd use a modelling tool to write the spec instead of visio and Word they may have better quality and consistency. Funny that people preaching stuff via a specification about modelling but don't actually use a modelling tool to ensure its correct. Bah! amateurs aye? The world is full of them and its seems to be getting worse.

I'm not religious but these words form the bible are fitting "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."   :(

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8399
  • Karma: +116/-106
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Re: ControlFlow not bi-directional
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2017, 04:13:15 pm »
Whom are you talking of? Oh My God? Their error-prone PDF spec is based on "models" which merely are used to create diagrams. Amateurs? Yes, professional amateurs.

q.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 04:16:26 pm by qwerty »

Sunshine

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +21/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ControlFlow not bi-directional
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2017, 02:46:36 pm »
Whom are you talking of? Oh My God? Their error-prone PDF spec is based on "models" which merely are used to create diagrams. Amateurs? Yes, professional amateurs.

q.
Just keep those professional amateurs away from designing and building aircraft. Just imagine if an aircraft manufacturer built a plane with the same lack of professional integrity as those guys wrote those Archimate Specs. Would you fly in it?

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8399
  • Karma: +116/-106
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Re: ControlFlow not bi-directional
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2017, 03:25:12 pm »
The OMG amateurs don't build airplanes. But airplane engineers use those amateur's spec to build airplanes. I'm flying less frequent these days.

q.

Sunshine

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +21/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ControlFlow not bi-directional
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2017, 08:08:25 pm »
The OMG amateurs don't build airplanes. But airplane engineers use those amateur's spec to build airplanes. I'm flying less frequent these days.

q.

Just to be clear I was talking about ArchiMate Standard by the Open Group and how it lacks robustness and consistency. Nothing to do with OMG or its specs. Point was there was a lack of quality that wouldn't be tolerated in some areas.

FYI  - Aircraft engineers use ISO/ IEEE /AS/ MIL-Q etc standards to build aircraft so rest assured air travel is still the safest form of travel and they ARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS who design and build them.

Notations like UML, SysML etc may be used to design along with some formal methods to meet safety critical needs as well as comprehensive testing to validate.

Worked in aviation industry for 9 years where I designed and built avionic systems so had first hand knowledge of it all.

But alas we drift off topic so lets call it a day.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 08:10:10 pm by Sunshine »