Sparx Systems Forum
Enterprise Architect => Bugs and Issues => Topic started by: Viking on October 21, 2016, 08:56:10 pm
-
Hello together,
I posted this topic already http://sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,31192.0.html (http://sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,31192.0.html).
But here it is a little bit different: I want to show an item as an Archimate Business Process shape in one viewpoint and the same item with an BPMN Activity shape in another viewpoint (BPMN-diagram). In the BPMN-diagram I use the different types of the shape and therefore different representations of the BPMN Activity shape.
My question is: do I have to declare every "sub-shape" in the Shapescript?
Many thanks in advance
Viking
-
I would say, that's plain wrong. It's either the one or the other and does not depend on the viewpoint. If you have some "Jekyll and Hyde"-element your design has likely a flaw.
q.
-
Hello,
Hm. Sounds to me like you're oversimplifying. Insisting on a single model element to represent some real-world entity, MySystem say, is a bit like writing a Word document where the word MySystem is only allowed to be typed in once and everywhere else you want to use that word you have to place a cross-reference to that single occurrence. Technically it works, but it just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
Secondly, a process in ArchiMate is not the same thing as a process in BPMN. They are two completely different standards, from two different (and in part, competing) standards organizations. There are, of course, situations where you want to include an element belonging to one model in a diagram which models something completely different (like, say, a process element in a diagram describing an organization), but typically you only do that as a reminder or a link to a different model. Here it sounds like you're trying to make one and the same element be two different things under two sets of rules depending on the context where you're looking at it. This doesn't make any sense to me.
Looked at a different way, what you're trying to do appears to be to create a new modelling language which extends both ArchiMate and BPMN. Which is no small task.
Anyway, ShapeScripts can check the type of the underlying diagram so yes, it can be done and yes, the whole script has to be included in the stereotype definition. Where else would you put half of it?
/Uffe
-
I would say, that's plain wrong. It's either the one or the other and does not depend on the viewpoint. If you have some "Jekyll and Hyde"-element your design has likely a flaw.
Many thanks, Q. I understand. I will try.
-
I agree with both q and Uffe. In other words: It's not because you can that you should :)
Geert
-
Sounds to me like you're oversimplifying. Insisting on a single model element to represent some real-world entity, MySystem say, is a bit like writing a Word document where the word MySystem is only allowed to be typed in once and everywhere else you want to use that word you have to place a cross-reference to that single occurrence. Technically it works, but it just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
For my opinion BPMN and Archimate are just notations. They are using Shapes to "show" something. Archimate "shows" a Process resp. Process Step in a different way than BPMN. But they a both using the same model, the Process resp. Process step. It's like the MVC-Pattern. A number can be shown in a viewpoint as a column or as a cycle (the size shows the amount in comparison to other numbers). Both views (Shapes) represent the same model, the number.
Secondly, a process in ArchiMate is not the same thing as a process in BPMN. They are two completely different standards, from two different (and in part, competing) standards organizations.
Both are notations.
Looked at a different way, what you're trying to do appears to be to create a new modelling language which extends both ArchiMate and BPMN. Which is no small task.
No!!! I am using different viewpoints showing different aspects of an Enterprise Architecture. I am using Archimate to show a system landscape and Process Steps using it. And I am using BPMN to model these Process Steps in a flow. Two different viewpoints, to different notations. Nothing merged. The are just using the same elements in the project browser which should be shown according the the standards used for the respctive viewpoints.
-
I would say, that's plain wrong. It's either the one or the other and does not depend on the viewpoint. If you have some "Jekyll and Hyde"-element your design has likely a flaw. q.
O.K. So I have to create a shapescript for each shape and for each property of the shape (e.g. for an BPMN "Activity": loop, subprocess, etc.)? This would be about 20 shapscripts only for "Activity".
And if the Business Analyst want to change the property of the shape (e.g. from loop to subprocess), he has to replace the shape with a new shape and redrawing all connections?
-
Sounds to me like you're oversimplifying. Insisting on a single model element to represent some real-world entity, MySystem say, is a bit like writing a Word document where the word MySystem is only allowed to be typed in once and everywhere else you want to use that word you have to place a cross-reference to that single occurrence. Technically it works, but it just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
For my opinion BPMN and Archimate are just notations. They are using Shapes to "show" something. Archimate "shows" a Process resp. Process Step in a different way than BPMN. But they a both using the same model, the Process resp. Process step. It's like the MVC-Pattern. A number can be shown in a viewpoint as a column or as a cycle (the size shows the amount in comparison to other numbers). Both views (Shapes) represent the same model, the number.
That may be your opinion, but it's not shared by OMG or the Open Group. Both standards use shapes to show "something"s, but the "something"s that are being shown are not the same "something"s. This is what gets you into trouble. Just because the two standards organizations happened to pick the word "process" for one of their respective concepts, that doesn't mean that an ArchiMate process is the same thing as a BPMN process.
Continuing your MVC analogy, there is no single universal definition of "a number". In a mathematical model, it can refer to the set of integer (or fractional, or real, or imaginary...) numbers -- but in a model of musical theatre it refers to a song-and-dance routine. You're trying to mix two models which are not quite as far apart as all that, but they are not one and the same.
Secondly, a process in ArchiMate is not the same thing as a process in BPMN. They are two completely different standards, from two different (and in part, competing) standards organizations.
Both are notations.
Both are notations with semantics. There is a lot more to them than the mere shapes, and if you ignore the defined semantics of your chosen notation, you're missing the point of using a standard in the first place.
If you have created a BPMN process, you have made a conscious decision not to display a certain shape but that you mean this element to represent a BPMN process. If you have created an ArchiMate process, you have made a conscious decision that you mean this element to represent an ArchiMate process.
Looked at a different way, what you're trying to do appears to be to create a new modelling language which extends both ArchiMate and BPMN. Which is no small task.
No!!! I am using different viewpoints showing different aspects of an Enterprise Architecture. I am using Archimate to show a system landscape and Process Steps using it. And I am using BPMN to model these Process Steps in a flow. Two different viewpoints, to different notations. Nothing merged. The are just using the same elements in the project browser which should be shown according the the standards used for the respctive viewpoints.
If you want to show two aspects of the same entity in your architecture, the best way is to let each EA element represent one aspect of that entity, not the entire entity. The same goes if you want to show the same entity in two different models using two different notations. So if a process in your architecture has some BPMN characteristics and some ArchiMate characteristics, model those as two different elements and connect them (if necessary) with a trace or realization.
I would say, that's plain wrong. It's either the one or the other and does not depend on the viewpoint. If you have some "Jekyll and Hyde"-element your design has likely a flaw. q.
O.K. So I have to create a shapescript for each shape and for each property of the shape (e.g. for an BPMN "Activity": loop, subprocess, etc.)? This would be about 20 shapscripts only for "Activity".
And if the Business Analyst want to change the property of the shape (e.g. from loop to subprocess), he has to replace the shape with a new shape and redrawing all connections?
What we're trying to say is that you're taking the wrong approach with a single element for a single real-world entity. If you instead use one element for each aspect of the real-world entity, the problem goes away.
/Uffe
-
From a technical standpoint it is entirely possible to write a single shapescript that transmogrifies depending on any number of parameters; tagged values, the type of the diagram, the name of the user, whatever.
But there are serious as Uffe and qwerty try to point out if this is something you should be doing.
I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again a few times:
It's not because you can that you should!
Geert
-
From a technical standpoint it is entirely possible to write a single shapescript that transmogrifies depending on any number of parameters; tagged values, the type of the diagram, the name of the user, whatever.
But there are serious as Uffe and qwerty try to point out if this is something you should be doing.
I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again a few times:
It's not because you can that you should!
Geert
Absolutely agree with the "troika". As Geert says, just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.
However, it IS the case that various methodologies have conflated various ideas and separate things that are merely different renderings, viewpoints or aspects of the same thing into separate objects - Swimlanes as a case in point.
However, when you are deciding if two things are the same you need to be very careful. As has been noted, an ArchiMate business process and a BPMN process aren't necessarily the same.
As has also been noted, trying to merge ArchiMate and BPMN is a very difficult thing. I recommend Bruce Silver's book: BPMN Method and Style.
That having been said, we are trying to merge them but are taking it very slowly. As I've said many times: It's ALL abut the semantics. We haven't been able to resolve them yet.
We ARE experimenting with allowing different renderings of the same object depending upon the viewpoint required and we are using the (still embryonic) user selected diagram specific properties mechanism for that purpose. So it can be relatively easily done if you want it.
HTH,
Paolo
-
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.
Secondly, a process in ArchiMate is not the same thing as a process in BPMN. They are two completely different standards, from two different (and in part, competing) standards organizations.
We have the same understanding.
As has been noted, an ArchiMate business process and a BPMN process aren't necessarily the same.
"ArchiMate business process and a BPMN process aren't necessarily the same" means, that they can be the same. In my model, the point exactly to the same thing.
If you have created a BPMN process, you have made a conscious decision not to display a certain shape but that you mean this element to represent a BPMN process. If you have created an ArchiMate process, you have made a conscious decision that you mean this element to represent an ArchiMate process
I am just using different shapes because I show the process steps in an Archimate-based viewpoint and in and BPMN-based viewpoint. I do NOT want to merge notations.
defined semantics of your chosen notation.
resp. BPMN characteristics and some ArchiMate characteristics
I think this is the point of my misunderstanding. Could you tell me the differences, please? This would help me a lot.
Many thanks in advance
V
-
"ArchiMate business process and a BPMN process aren't necessarily the same" means, that they can be the same. In my model, the point exactly to the same thing.
I think what you're ignoring is that relationships already exist in most notations to do what you want without merging the two concepts into one element. For example trace which you can find on the common toolbox on every diagram.
-
An alternative understanding of "ArchiMate Business Processes and BPMN Processes aren't necessarily the same" is that some ArchiMate Business Process and BPMN Processes may be the same, some ArchiMate Business Processes are NOT BPMN Processes and some BPMN Processes AREN'T ArchiMate Business Processes.
This means it may be dangerous to assume they are ALL the same.
Paolo
-
An alternative understanding of "ArchiMate Business Processes and BPMN Processes aren't necessarily the same" is that some ArchiMate Business Process and BPMN Processes may be the same, some ArchiMate Business Processes are NOT BPMN Processes and some BPMN Processes AREN'T ArchiMate Business Processes. This means it may be dangerous to assume they are ALL the same. Paolo
(1)
There must be a misunderstanding. I am NOT talking about BPMN Processes or Archimate Processes.
I am talking about Process Steps. I describe the flow in a BPMN model. I am using an Archimate-based model to map the same process steps to the IT capabailities (applications) supporting them.
(2)
I also do NOT want to merge models.
In the BPMN diagram I use BPMN_Activity to show the process steps. In the archimate diagram I use Archimate_Process.
I can not see the point why this should be wrong.
-
Do you mean you have two elements, one a BPMN Activity and the other an ArchiMate Business Process, perhaps with the same name? If so, then you don't have the same element, you have TWO, potentially linked, elements.
Then we've all been under a huge misunderstanding from the start.
Assuming that what I said at the start above is true, if not, then there's no point in continuing to discuss.
How do you intend to link the two elements? Will they have the same or related names?
Paolo
-
In the BPMN diagram I use BPMN_Activity to show the process steps. In the archimate diagram I use Archimate_Process.
I can not see the point why this should be wrong.
So there is a Trace relationship between the two things. If you look at the meta-models for the two different notations you'll see the definitions for both elements are different.
-
Do you mean you have two elements, one a BPMN Activity and the other an ArchiMate Business Process, perhaps with the same name? If so, then you don't have the same element, you have TWO, potentially linked, elements.
Both shapes have the same name, because they represent / show the same process step. But the both shapes are in different diagrams / viewpoints.
I do not need to link anything. Both shapes represent an element (the same) in the project browser. So the "real" entity (resp. the process steps) does not have a shape on its own or is shown in an addditional diagram. Because both shapes "sit" on the same process step. they are linked "internally". The shape-script is responsible for the right representation (shape, meaning BPMN-Activity or Archimate_Process) in the respective viewpoint (BPMN-based viewpoint oder Archimate-base viewpoint).
-
Both shapes have the same name, because they represent / show the same process step. But the both shapes are in different diagrams / viewpoints.
See the words "represent" and "show" in your sentence. A representation is not the thing itself.
It's your choice to not do the correct thing, no one is trying to stop you, but insisting you're right is just the tiniest bid obnoxious.
-
See the words "represent" and "show" in your sentence. A representation is not the thing itself.
YES ! A representation is not the thing itself. That's the point.
And now? Was the discussion a misunderstanding or is my "understanding" a misunderstanding?
-
I would like to come back to my original reply. Have you seen the GEB on Hofstadter's book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach)? I guess that your element is such a thing. But actually you deceive the reader by just showing one of the shadows of the element. The element is the one producing the three shadows (and a lot of others; you might also look into Platon's cave allegory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)). I would use an individual shape for the element in all circumstances.
q.
-
See the words "represent" and "show" in your sentence. A representation is not the thing itself.
YES ! A representation is not the thing itself. That's the point.
And now? Was the discussion a misunderstanding or is my "understanding" a misunderstanding?
Your argument is basically "If I am married to a woman who is a twin and I have sex with her twin brother it isn't infidelity because they share DNA in common". It's a fallacious argument even in the case of identical twins.
Your audience here are people who spend a lot of time making sure models (representations of reality) are logically, syntactically and semantically correct. Logically, syntactically and semantically an Archimate process is not equal to a BPMN activity. They may both be representations of the same human or system activities, but they are different representations. Different representations can be modeled by a relationship between the two elements, or a relationship to a common parent element.
You're welcome to create your own shapescript that is both Archimate and BPMN at the same time. You're welcome to invent your own hybrid notation that is both. You're also welcome to all the pain you're going to have trying to do something simple like export a model with any form of internal integrity.
-
You're welcome to invent your own hybrid notation that is both.
This was and is not my itention. Nothing will be merged. I had already the hope, that this was understood. I am talking about two different viewpoints, both showing different aspects of an (one) enterprise architecture. I am using standard notations. BPMN for Business Prozesses and Archimate for standard archimate viewpoints.
-
You're welcome to invent your own hybrid notation that is both.
This was and is not my itention. Nothing will be merged. I had already the hope, that this was understood. I am talking about two different viewpoints, both showing different aspects of an (one) enterprise architecture. I am using standard notations. BPMN for Business Prozesses and Archimate for standard archimate viewpoints.
If they're not merged tell me how you intend to maintain a package containing a full and complete Archimate model and a separate package containing a full and complete BPMN model?
-
If they're not merged tell me how you intend to maintain a package containing a full and complete Archimate model and a separate package containing a full and complete BPMN model?
As I said, the notations will not be merged. A viewpoint only uses the notation it is designed for. As I said, because the "full package" contains different viewpoints using different notations, the "full package" contains different notations. On this level, they will be "merged".
For my opinion it is comparable with the advice, not to mix a good wine with water. Both are in a fridge in separate bottles. But because they are in the same fridge, they can be considered as mixed.
-
If they're not merged tell me how you intend to maintain a package containing a full and complete Archimate model and a separate package containing a full and complete BPMN model?
As I said, the notations will not be merged. A viewpoint only uses the notation it is designed for. As I said, because the "full package" contains different viewpoints using different notations, the "full package" contains different notations. On this level, they will be "merged".
For my opinion it is comparable with the advice, not to mix a good wine with water. Both are in a fridge in separate bottles. But because they are in the same fridge, they can be considered as mixed.
To use your metaphor, you're mixing in the bottle. You will not be able to do simple things like export a model to share it. When the model is reimported it will be completely broken.
-
You will not be able to do simple things like export a model to share it. When the model is reimported it will be completely broken.
I export and import everything very often and nothing is broken at all. I think there is a misunderstanding.
-
You will not be able to do simple things like export a model to share it. When the model is reimported it will be completely broken.
I export and import everything very often and nothing is broken at all. I think there is a misunderstanding.
What happens when someone else without your frankennotation imports it.
-
What happens when someone else without your frankennotation imports it.
As I said: the notations are not mixed inside a view. A view is based on only one (1) notation.
We are using different views showing different aspects of the enterprise architecture. For example one view is based on the "Introductory Viewpoint" of Archimate. Another view shows Business Processes and is based on BPMN (we could have used Archimate instead. But BPMN has been decided).
This is nothing new. This is also supported by Sparx EA.
My (our) issue is now, that views show the same thing with different notations. Because we do NOT want to mix notations, we use shapescripts. Dependent on the view (resp. the underlying notation resp. the stereotype) the "thing" is shown in different ways (resp. notation esp. shape) inside the respective viewpoint.
Hope this makes it clearer.
-
Why do you refuse to answer the question? What happens when you export a package and give it to someone else?
-
Why do you refuse to answer the question? What happens when you export a package and give it to someone else?
I am sorry, I did not want to refuse it. I should have said: "We export, import and exchange everything very often and nothing is broken at all."
The reason is, that each view (resp. viewpoint) uses one (1) notation only.
-
A viewpoint isn't a model, which you don't seem to understand.
-
A viewpoint isn't a model, which you don't seem to understand.
Do you mean a model in EA or a model as a simplification of the real world?
If your are talking about a model in EA, then we also exchange models between the colleagues. Nothing gets broken.
Maybe you can tell me the reason why I am wrong. I would also like to know the difference between a Process (resp. Process Step) in Archimate and a Subprocess or Process-Step in BPMN. I would appreciate this input a lot.
-
Maybe you can tell me the reason why I am wrong. I would also like to know the difference between a Process (resp. Process Step) in Archimate and a Subprocess or Process-Step in BPMN. I would appreciate this input a lot.
As I pointed out earlier the definitions of both elements are different. They are defined by the authors of the notations as different concepts. But as you seem to want to ignore that and focus on the both names including the same word, how about you explain to me what the difference between a horse and a zebra is. Obviously all equids must be interchangeable as they all look superficially like a horse.
-
As I pointed out earlier the definitions of both elements are different. They are defined by the authors of the notations as different concepts. But as you seem to want to ignore that and focus on the both names including the same word, how about you explain to me what the difference between a horse and a zebra is. Obviously all equids must be interchangeable as they all look superficially like a horse.
Hello Glassboy, It would be great if you could explain the differences to me. It is not my intention to ignore them resp. your feedback. In contrary. That's why I am here. V
-
Hello Glassboy, It would be great if you could explain the differences to me. It is not my intention to ignore them resp. your feedback. In contrary. That's why I am here. V
You're asking me to provide a compelling argument for why your position isn't true. The onus isn't on me to explain why two different definitions from two different notations aren't the same thing. It's on you to explain why you think they are. As previously stated it is fine for you to do what ever you want. You can have a coarse level of granulation - where a horse is the same thing as a zebra - but everyone on the forum is free to disagree with you.
-
I think the point is that, if you create your own "MyProcess" that looks like an Archimate process when used on an Archimate diagram and looks like an BPMN process when used on a BPMN diagram, it is in fact neither.
When exporting your model to another tool, or even to my EA (which doesn't know your UML profile that defines "MyProcess"), your process will not be recognized as a BPMN process and not as an Archimate process. It will be an activity with an unknown stereotype.
That is the thing with standards, as soon as you divert from them they cannot be used anymore as a common language that everyone understands (and can import it its own tool), even it the pictures look exactly the same. It's not the pictures that get exported/imported, but the model.
This is not per definition wrong, it is just a limitation you should be aware of. As long as you intend to use this model only in-house, with EA and the UML profile you created, and all users know exactly what you mean by "MyProcess" that could work just fine.
Geert
-
I think the point is that, if you create your own "MyProcess" that looks like an Archimate process when used on an Archimate diagram and looks like an BPMN process when used on a BPMN diagram, it is in fact neither.
When exporting your model to another tool, or even to my EA (which doesn't know your UML profile that defines "MyProcess"), your process will not be recognized as a BPMN process and not as an Archimate process. It will be an activity with an unknown stereotype.
That is the thing with standards, as soon as you divert from them they cannot be used anymore as a common language that everyone understands (and can import it its own tool), even it the pictures look exactly the same. It's not the pictures that get exported/imported, but the model.
This is not per definition wrong, it is just a limitation you should be aware of. As long as you intend to use this model only in-house, with EA and the UML profile you created, and all users know exactly what you mean by "MyProcess" that could work just fine.
Geert
Many thanks, Geert. This is something I understand. If I understood you correctly it is more a technical issue. Or is there really a difference between a process, subprocess or process step shown with Archimate, ARIS EPK or BPMN notation? For my understanding a process is a process, subprocess is a subprocess, and a process step is as process step. They are notation "agnostic". I can show a process, subprocess or process step in all notations. They are still the same process, subprocess respectivly process step. A clarification would be very helpful for me, because I cannot see the difference in the definitions.
-
To be honest I haven't looked up the difference between the process definitions in BPMN and Archimate, but I don't expect too much of them. Especially Archimate specs excel in being vague and ambiguous about things.
Just make sure that your users and audience all have the same understanding of what you mean by "process", "sub-process" or "process-step".
Geert
-
To be honest I haven't looked up the difference between the process definitions in BPMN and Archimate, but I don't expect too much of them. Especially Archimate specs excel in being vague and ambiguous about things.
Just make sure that your users and audience all have the same understanding of what you mean by "process", "sub-process" or "process-step".
Geert
Dear Geert, thank you very much for this clarification. This is also my understanding. The discussion here about definitions must have been a misunderstanding.
-
The discussion here about definitions must have been a misunderstanding.
No they aren't, but unless you want to move beyond willful ignorance the point seems to be wholly lost on you.
-
The discussion here about definitions must have been a misunderstanding.
No they aren't, but unless you want to move beyond willful ignorance the point seems to be wholly lost on you.
Dear Glassboy, my question was adressed to somebody who helped me to understand an issue. I also asked YOU to clarify the issue. But you answered only, that I do not understand the difference and that I have to understand the difference. I am very sorry. I cannot identify a difference. That's why I am asking for help. I think it would be better to give me an answer instead of telling me several times that I ignore everything. V