ArchiMate 3.0.1 metamodel PDF

36 comments

  1. Good work! I’d like to have the model source so I can create a version in the original color scheme of the standard itself, would that be possible?

    Like

    1. Even better: I created it for you. There is now also a version in the layered-colour scheme. See the text of the post (the link and how it looks is at the end). I also removed the colours from the ‘Strategy in Context’ diagram and changed the Implementation one, so I think I did not miss anything. I also improved the text and checked if the transformation did not change anything (as a bit of trickery is going on in the model to make the diagrams look as they do).

      Like

  2. Note to all: the PDF’s have been updated in a non-minor fashion. There were still a few omissions in the existing PDFs and on popular request, I’ve changed the orientation Left-to-Right.

    Like

  3. I keep coming back and referring to this PDF while building models, it’s incredibly useful, but I also just wanted to point out that the link from the “tiered” colour scheme diagram is a little broken.

    Like

    1. Not very much in the core metamodel. Here are some:

      Triggers and Flows between events and services were added
      Triggers and Flows from service to service were added
      Assignment from Device to Artifact was moved back to Node to Artifact as it was in ArchiMate 2.1
      Material can Realise Business Object
      Technology internal behaviour (e.g. Technology Function) can Realise Business behavior

      The derivation mechanism was much improved in the standard. And the full table of all possible relations (core and derived) has been improved immensely as a result (it contained hundreds if not thousands of errors making it impossible for any tool to be both ArchiMate compliant and usable at the same time…)

      Like

    1. Hi Uno,

      Not all relations are in these diagrams, only the Core Relations that make up the ArchiMate metamodel. All other relations (there are thousands, it is impossible to put them all in and it would also make the diagram unusable) in the ArchiMate Standard’s appendix can be derived following the derivation rules.

      In this case, Artifact Realises Application Component Assigned-To Application Function Access Data Object. In other words, that Access relation means that the Artifact is something like an executable file. Sometimes, the relations that are allowed mean quite something different than you expect. See Section 11.1 Pitfalls of Derived Relations in the Free Syntax Excerpt of Mastering ArchiMate Edition III (can be downloaded from the book’s home page: https://ea.rna.nl/the-book-edition-iii/)

      Like

    1. Hi Graham, what do you mean? What is displayed here is the ArchiMate 3.0.1 core metamodel, just laid out in a particular way. If there is a difference, I need to update my visualisation.

      Like

      1. Ok, I’m sorry but I’ve just never seen the “Modelling Automated BL” description before in Archimate. Are they automated realisation relationships generated by the modelling tool, based on inference?

        Like

      2. No, they are (as all the relation in these views) Core relations. “Modelling Automated BL” is an annotation for the relation in this view to explain that it is intended to represent automation (‘automated’) behaviour in the business layer (BL behaviour as an abstraction of IT/Technology behaviour). Other labels in these sheets are like that (“E.g. TOGAF Log/Phys” as annotation for another realisation).

        These sheets are not meant to learn ArchiMate from, they are meant as easy reference sheets for those who already have learned the syntax. Maybe it is best to download the Free Syntax Excerpt of the Mastering ArchiMate book. That explains the syntax in full.

        Like

      3. Graham, there is not much to agree or disagree with or any ‘opinion’. As far as I know, there are no errors in my description of the ArchiMate Core metamodel (and if they are pointed out to me, I fix them). Nor have I made any changes to it. The above is correct.

        Like

      4. I didn’t come here to correct your work, nor to buy your book. I was given a copy of your version of the Archimate 3.0.1 metamodel, and I questioned the Modelling Automated BL realisation relationship; which I haven’t see before, nor could I find a clear reference to it in the Archimate 3.0.1 specification.

        You responded by questioning my lack of Archimate experience, and pointing me to your Free Syntax Excerpt of the Mastering ArchiMate book; which I downloaded and read. But again it doesn’t reference the Archimate specification in relation to the Automated Processes; which is what my question was about.

        So, since you can’t point me to any reference in the Archimate spec, I can only assume it’s your opinion.

        Like

      5. Hi Graham. You started out asking “Is there a view or list of all of the changes you’ve made to the original Archimate 3.0.1 metamodel?”, apparently assuming I had. You asked if they had been ‘derived/generated by a tool based on inference’.

        The relations I have put in that sheet you got are part of the standard. They are mentioned in section 12.1 of the standard and section 7.14 (and 7.17) of my syntax explanation. The standard is terse there (only specifically mentions the passive side, because the behaviour side of cross layer Realisation is new in version 3 and the text is still mostly version 2) and doesn’t mention all the possibilities in the text, but does show them in Figure 96. Example 33 is also still purely ArchiMate 2 (correct in ArchiMate 3, but doesn’t show the behavioural/interface realisations that were added in ArchiMate 3)

        So, you are right, there is no *clear* reference in the standard, it’s a bit silent about these in the text. That is why a more didactically oriented book like mine can be handy. And my book tells in Sections 7.14 and 7.17 people how they can use these relations (and critiques some of it in section 36). It doesn’t at every point in the text put in a reference where to find something in the standard. That would be a bit boring, I think, and not create a good book. I have written my own explanation, but every relation that is mentioned in that sheet is a Core ArchiMate relation and not something I have made up.

        But feel free to interpret it in any other way. Though I would be curious what other interpretation is possible given the normal role of Realisation between layers.

        Like

  4. I started out asking “I’m sorry but what’s a “Modelling Automated BL”?”, simply because I hadn’t seen it before. I didn’t say I disagreed with the realization, just that I hadn’t seen it.

    Anyhow, thanks for the reference, that’s all I was after Chapter 12, Section 12.1 – Alignment of Business Layer and Lower Layers and Figure 96: Relationships between Business Layer and Application and Technology Layer Elements.

    Like

  5. Hi Gerben, this is an excellent resource – thank you for assembling it!

    In looking it over, I noticed that the Product element is named “(Business Product)” (instead of ArchiMate’s metaclass name: “Product”). Was this the intention?

    Like

    1. I don’t really recall. It may stem from earlier versions when Product was just a member of the Business Layer and I wanted to label everything in the BL with ‘Business. I’ll change it as soon as I get a chance.

      Like

Leave a Reply to Philipp Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: