Book a Demo
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?  (Read 5910 times)

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8626
  • Karma: +259/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?
« on: July 10, 2013, 10:03:54 pm »
(He's back!)

Can anyone provide a rationale for why an ArchiMate Realization implemented in t_connector as a Dependency?

BTW, the ArchiMate Standard describes them as Realization (not Realisation - as in ArchiMate_Realization, the EA Stereotype)  The Toolbox shows it as "Realization".  Shades of: Dear Geoffrey...!!!!  Nothing seems to have changed in nearly 4 years...

EAUI++

Paolo

PS:  According to the Standard, they're Specializations and Generalizations; with a "z", not with an "s"
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 10:07:20 pm by PaoloFCantoni »
Logged
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 13523
  • Karma: +574/-33
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2013, 10:44:52 pm »
In this document
https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-47276/ they are suggesting to use the UML Realisation (yes with an S) as the base class of the <<Archimate realisation>> (again with an S).

It also seems to be the most logical choice. Is there an "official" specification of the Archimate UML profile?

Geert
Logged

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 13584
  • Karma: +397/-301
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Re: ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2013, 10:44:54 pm »
Paolo,
you are right. Nothing has changed.

And no. I have no idea, except that dependency and realiz/sation look quite similar. Probably reason enough.

q.
Logged

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8626
  • Karma: +259/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2013, 10:56:56 pm »
Quote
In this document
https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-47276/ they are suggesting to use the UML Realisation (yes with an S) as the base class of the <<Archimate realisation>> (again with an S).

It also seems to be the most logical choice. Is there an "official" specification of the Archimate UML profile?

Geert
Thanks for that Geert,

There's no such thing as a UML Realisation; it's a Realization.

ArchiMate 2.0 fixed this - it's a Realization!

But even in 2004 they were NOT suggesting it should be implemented as a Dependency...

Paolo
Logged
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8626
  • Karma: +259/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: ArchiMate Realizations as Dependency?
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2016, 05:52:51 pm »
Quote from: Paolo F Cantoni on July 10, 2013, 10:56:56 pm
[SNIP]

But even in 2004 they were NOT suggesting it should be implemented as a Dependency...

Paolo
In the 2012 standard, there's STILL no mention of Dependency.

We're creating our own MDG and I want to rectify this.  Can anyone suggest a reason not to?  I'm NOT interested in maintaining compatibility with an inconsistent MDG.  I am interested in creating a Semantically consistent modelling environment.

TIA,
Paolo
Logged
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!
Pages: [1]
« previous next »