Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Glassboy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64
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.

General Board / Re: 14 RC - Still hass DPI issues
« on: Today at 09:38:13 am »
You can choose to look at it that we have ignored the issue, or see that there have been real improvements.

Given the self indulgent pseudonym I very much doubt you'll get him to change his mind :-)

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.

General Board / Re: 14 RC - Still hass DPI issues
« on: Today at 08:32:05 am »

Bugs and Issues / Re: Pro Cloud Server Installation
« on: April 20, 2018, 07:34:15 am »
Thanks for the help guys, we have now sorted this issue out.  It turns out that when installing 'Pro Cloud' onto a virtual machine in a domain the software needs domain Administrator rights when running the installation, not just local admin for some reason.  Not sure if this is unique to our system though.

That's not good.  That would be an automatic fail in quite a few organisations during a software evaluation.

General Board / Re: Glossary plural terms
« on: April 18, 2018, 09:59:35 am »
There is an important point underlying my question.  Here in the post-colonial world there is real offence taken over the abuse of indigenous languages.  The desire to just suck it and see from a former coloniser doesn't hold much appeal.

Now I know it was just another cheap shot against Sparx, but it's also a much bigger issue than just what is in the EA Glossary.  The authoritative source for the EA Glossary should be the organisations enterprise business glossary which should contain not only pluralisations but also synonyms.

Personally I'm glad Sparx is not committing any further evil by fooling around with something that needs to be done properly. 

General Board / Re: Glossary plural terms
« on: April 18, 2018, 07:48:08 am »
No. It has been discussed here a couple of years ago. Pluralization is not that trivial (for Sparx) and they are not willing to create a Pareto solution.

My dialect of English which has a large smattering of Polynesian loan words certainly has non-trivial pluralisation.  How would you propose this Pareto solution detected the source language of the word and applied the correct pluralisation scheme? 

General Board / Re: Importing model from Rhapsody to EA
« on: April 17, 2018, 07:07:30 am »

The same situation after 8 years. Nobody from IBM or Sparx Systems seems to be interested at all.,36106.msg244077.html

Please don't resurrect old threads.  If you have a question just ask it.

FYI Gartner has something called pace layering which describes three types of system.

I'd partially forgotten about that.  It's more a tool for getting management to understand different systems have different life cycle management requirements.  Not that I've ever really seen it work.

That's an interesting take.  My definition of a system of record is somewhat simpler, but the end result, I think, is close to yours.

I believe (without actual proof - but else why coin it?) that the term "System of Record" derives from the epithet "Newspaper of Record" - such as is/was applied to the Washington Post, the Times of London etc.  These newspapers are so designated because they are general purpose "and their editorial and news-gathering functions are considered comprehensive, professional and typically authoritative".  In addition, should one wish to access information about a past event, one can consult their archives and determine the "facts" at that point in time.  That is, they create factual records and retain them for later consultation.

There's a simple test for that proposition and the answer seems to be no :-)

From my point of view, a System of Record needs to be able to hold past data and how that data (or the understanding of that data) has evolved via any appropriate state episodes.  So far, this corresponds with your "capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do".

Now where I think I align with your view is that as the facts to be held (one could say the "editorial and news-gathering functions") need to change because the environment or context changes and the system doesn't change accordingly, it can no longer be accorded the epithet "System of Record", since it can no longer record the necessary facts.

How's that sound?  I'd like to come to a useful definition because I can then add it to our Ontological Model and use it to educate our modellers, architects and users.

In that it may only contain a subset or cause a perceptual problem (such as believing monotremes are no different than other mammals).

A system of record is there to meet the requirements of a "why".  If you don't know the "why" - the contractual or legal obligation - there is no "record".
Can you expand on that?  I've not heard it that way before.

There are two sorts of things organisations do.  Things they want to do and things they have to do.  When you have a good look at what a system of record it is doing (in my experience) it is capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do.

For example (if you are using ArchiMate) at the motivation level you should have a Stakeholder and a Driver for example "NZ Police" and "Comply with suspicious transaction reporting requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009".  There should also be a Goal along the lines of not trigger the punitive damages associated with not meeting the obligations.  These motivational elements will all connect some how to a system of record for transactions.  In an industry like banking this system probably predates business analysts and architects fucking things up.  At some stage someone probably trained in systems analysis laid all the ground work for a mature and robust data model for transactions.

Where we run in to trouble is when legislation changes or a new concept is introduced and the design doesn't start at the conceptual layer.  You don't know why you are making a change beyond what is in the project scope document.  You end up with a system that records things, but not the record you need to meet the obligation.  Or a very fragile record.

"System of Record" is another misunderstood term.  People often conflate it with "source of truth" and even "system of authorship", which may or may not (and often aren't) Systems of Record.

A system of record is there to meet the requirements of a "why".  If you don't know the "why" - the contractual or legal obligation - there is no "record".

I personally think that the concept of "Source of Truth" is misleading(1).  The implication is that there is one source of absolute truth.  Neither of which is correct.

It's just a symptom of people mixing data and information and not understanding the context of either.  There generally is only one source for each context.  There's a reason that Zachman had a list of "what" at the contextual level.  You need to create the list before you start looking at the lower levels; but people never do.

1. Data does not 'flow', it is queried.  Data flows are a hang-on from 1970s mainframe philosophy that stuck around because people liked the idea although it only has very limited usefulness (a bit like flowcharts).  I don's know if an architecture based on information flows can be efficient/effective/flexible (I'd be

Rubbish.  I've documented thousands of flat files transferred between systems in one organisation alone.  There was nothing that remotely resembled a structured query anywhere.  It was a wholesale flow of data between systems that was then used to create information in those systems.

It's a very common occurrence.

In our architecture we model information flows. Now we want to create models and analyze where information is created (mastered) and where it is used.
That can be done by hand by looking at our information flow models and create new models depicting this (or creating them in the relationship matrix).
That is a lot of work!
Is there a way to “automatically” create those models/matrices from the information flows? In most cases the direction of an information flows indicates the creator (master) and the user of information.

Interesting idea, but what comes immediately to mind is that the data that makes up your information is likely to be captured or created in a multitude of locations that may not match the system that is authoritative for the information. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64