Different Shapes in different Viewpoints for the same Diagram Element

[Glassboy]

A viewpoint isn't a model, which you don't seem to understand.

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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

[Glassboy]

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.

[Geert Bellekens]

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

[Viking]

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.

[Geert Bellekens]

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

[Viking]

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.

[Glassboy]

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.

[Viking]

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