Different Shapes in different Viewpoints for the same Diagram Element

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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).

[Glassboy]

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. 

[Viking]

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?

[qwerty]

I would like to come back to my original reply. Have you seen the GEB on Hofstadter's book? 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). I would use an individual shape for the element in all circumstances.

q.

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

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?

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

Why do you refuse to answer the question?  What happens when you export a package and give it to someone else?

[Viking]

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.