Archimate: Modify Default Element Appearance

[filippo.gentile]

Dear All,

I would like to customize the appearance of ArchiMate 3 objects (non-UML objects). In particular, I would like to be able to:
- specify the shape of an element;
- specify the dimension of an element;
- specify the background color of an element;
- add additional tags to an element (additional asset);
- add header and footer to contain text (additional asset).

Everything by keeping the default properties and appearance of each ArchiMate element.

Do you have suggestions on how to implement the above listed changes?
Do you think that defining stereotypes for non-UML objects would be a possible solution? If yes, is there any alternative easier to implement?

Thanks a lot!

Filippo

[Arshad]

Hi

Do you think that defining stereotypes for non-UML objects would be a possible solution?

Yes

Is there any alternative easier to implement?

Please have a look at Package Templates.



HTH
Arshad

[qwerty]

I don't know Archimate well, but your wording is a bit suspect. Modifying a language is usually not a good idea. But extending it should well be possible by creating your own MDG based on Archimate.

q.

[Glassboy]

I don't know Archimate well, but your wording is a bit suspect. Modifying a language is usually not a good idea. But extending it should well be possible by creating your own MDG based on Archimate.

Adding attributes and specialising elements is kosher according to Archimate http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/chap15.html#_Toc489946139 .  But you're right, functionally a MDG that specialises the whole thing is probably best.  You could go as far as some people (Sunshine?) and create your own Archimate 3 MDG.

[Sunshine]

Yes you can certainly do all that via an MDG with shape scripts and add tag values for extra attributes. Its also alright to represent the elements of ArchiMate with other symbols/images to cater to the audience. Marc Lankhorst mentions that in his book Enterprise Architecture at Work. I always represent the ArchiMate elements with graphics when showing the executives but use the default shapes when communicating with fellow architects.

I did find extending ArchiMate MDG with another MDG worked but I didn't have complete control so I eventually ended up creating ArchiMate symbols via shapescripts myself and removing the dependency on the ArchiMate MDG supplied by Sparx EA.

[Nizam]

- specify the shape of an element;
- specify the dimension of an element;
- specify the background color of an element;
- add additional tags to an element (additional asset);
- add header and footer to contain text (additional asset).

You can certainly extend non-UML objects, however to achieve most of what you have asked for, can try template packages.

Defining a new MDG extending ArchiMate, you'll be introducing new stereotypes, and as others have mentioned you might as well derive from the UML objects and add the shapescripts accordingly. One very useful resource I use when doing this is "https://github.com/GeertBellekens/Enterprise-Architect-Shapescript-Library" (Thanks Geert). 
I've found it advantageous to remove dependency from ArchiMate and define my own quicklinkers, especially when I've to adhere to a specific metamodel.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Yes you can certainly do all that via an MDG with shape scripts and add tag values for extra attributes. Its also alright to represent the elements of ArchiMate with other symbols/images to cater to the audience. Marc Lankhorst mentions that in his book Enterprise Architecture at Work. I always represent the ArchiMate elements with graphics when showing the executives but use the default shapes when communicating with fellow architects.

I did find extending ArchiMate MDG with another MDG worked but I didn't have complete control so I eventually ended up creating ArchiMate symbols via shapescripts myself and removing the dependency on the ArchiMate MDG supplied by Sparx EA.

As did we...

Paolo

[filippo.gentile]

Thank you all for the useful answer, I tried out both the "MDG" and the "template" solutions as proposed, and they both satisfy my needs!
Thanks again!

Filippo

[cy.walker]

hi all,

Sorry for my ignorance, I have only started to work with EA and would like to modify some of the Archimate 3 object layouts (i.e. display version, move label location, add options to display tagged values, etc on BusinessObject, etc).

What is the simplest approach to achieve this in EA 13.5?

Thanks in advance.

[Nizam]

As stated in the previous replies, you can do this by extending ArchiMate3 constructs to define your tagged values and shapescripts ( custom look and feel)

Alternatively, if you wish to do the unconventional method, create a shapescript and replace that in the ArchiMate3.xml in MDG Technologies folder in the installation path. (Please note - not a very recommended option, but doable)

[Glassboy]

Sorry for my ignorance, I have only started to work with EA and would like to modify some of the Archimate 3 object layouts (i.e. display version, move label location, add options to display tagged values, etc on BusinessObject, etc).

What is the simplest approach to achieve this in EA 13.5?

You'll have to completely reimplement ArchiMate 3 as a new MDG with your own shapescript.  You'll also have to make sure everyone who uses it disables the in-built MDG.

[cy.walker]

Thanks Nazim & Glassboy.
I'm looking to simply get control over the 'look & feel' of the Archimate3 shapes without disrupting anything else within the existing MDG. I am not in a position to invest in creating specific MDG for the business yet, just need things to 'look pretty' for stakeholders initially.

Nazim - although unconventional, would you expect your last approach to break the existing Archimate3 MDG?

[Glassboy]

Thanks Nazim & Glassboy.
I'm looking to simply get control over the 'look & feel' of the Archimate3 shapes without disrupting anything else within the existing MDG. I am not in a position to invest in creating specific MDG for the business yet, just need things to 'look pretty' for stakeholders initially.

The "look and feel" is shape script over UML elements.  It's not the best shape script Sparx has produced and to do something about it you'd need to replace it completely.  A couple of posters here have produced their own ArchiMate 3 implementations for similar reasons.

[Nizam]

Thanks Nazim & Glassboy.
I'm looking to simply get control over the 'look & feel' of the Archimate3 shapes without disrupting anything else within the existing MDG. I am not in a position to invest in creating specific MDG for the business yet, just need things to 'look pretty' for stakeholders initially.

Nazim - although unconventional, would you expect your last approach to break the existing Archimate3 MDG?

The technology is an XML file and you can replace the shapescript safely without breaking it, however, there are other challenges too, all your teams must have the updated XML file. I would urge you to please consider the way the MDGs are referred prior to taking this route.

[cy.walker]

Thanks guys.
EA 'team' consists of 1 so not to much of a concern at this stage but will certainly take your advice moving forwards when we extend EA's usage & integration.
Cheers.