Is the new Archi 4 Beta relationships table based on https://masteringarchimate.com/2017/02/07/the-archimate-3-0-relations-table/ ?
BTW the new table broke my modeling method but I already had a plan to change it, so luckily this happened when I'm still in my proof of concept/demo stage :-)
Regards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
yes it is. But there are going to be some more changes to it soon.
Phil
Hi Peter,
Quote from: brain_work on February 23, 2017, 12:39:31 PM
BTW the new table broke my modeling method
Can you tell me more ?
FYI, I've already found some missing relationships (realization from workpakage to plateau for example) that are being fixed by Gerben.
Regards,
JB
If you look at my attachement at http://forum.archimatetool.com/index.php?topic=312.msg1645#msg1645 you can see that I (until now) use only the Resource, Course of Action and the triggering relationship as to make very simple views, which are easily understood by non-architects/archimate experts.
Until Beta 7 this was allowed and I thought it was also allowed by looking at the official documentation (but I must recheck that, because it was a while ago when I looked at that. Perhaps I just made a wrong interpretation)
Regards,
Peter
I just checked and I think I didn't look good enough at this picture from the official ArchiMate 3.0 specification which looked like it uses triggering arrows but the text says otherwise...
Regards,
Peter
Hi,
In fact I think you're right (but it's a matter of interpretation of official specs). Triggers between Strategy elements could be valid through derivation rules, but the question is do derivation rules apply for Strategy elements ?
Specs (http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/chap05.html#_Toc451757969) say that "Note that these derivation rules do not work on relationships with grouping, or between core elements and other elements such as motivation, strategy, or implementation and migration elements, with the exception of the realization and influence relationships.".
This becomes then a matter of interpretation: does this means that derivations are not permetted only accross domaines (when mixing Core and Strategy) or even inside a domain other than Core ?
My personal opinion is that we should allow derivation inside Strategy domain, and thus allow those triggers. But we have to discuss this with Gerben too.
Regards,
JB
I'm now testing if I can model everything with just using Capabilities and triggering relationships. The nice thing about this is that the Visualiser view becomes a kind of huge (in my case >25000 elements & >50000 relationships) dynamic concept map.
The main requirement for us is to be able to make views which describe complex application/business chains in the most simple way. Details can be found in other tooling so our model is just a huge roadmap like a kind of directed Tube Map with implicit (by using consistent names) or explicit (by URL) references to other sources.
Maybe we are going to use (more of) ArchiMate in a later point in time, therefor I think that using capabilities is a relatively safe choice because we can detail those later when needed (as the spec says: Capabilities are [...] typically realized by a combination of organization, people, processes, information, and technology.)
Regards,
Peter
This is an error in the script. It blocks trigger/flow to/from passive elements but I forgot that Resource is both Active and Passive. I am in the process of fixing it (will do so quickly and return here).
New relationship table for Archi:
Thanks. But I don't think I can do something with it and that I must wait for the next beta?
Regards,
Peter
Options:
I can keep putting out beta builds with the updated relationships.xml file, or users could manually replace the file and test it thus minimising the number of builds. :-)
Hi,
Just a reminder for everyone: allowed relationships are not hard-coded in Archi but defined through an XML file. So you can edit (in this case, replace) it and restart Archi to have it applied.
This file is named relationships.xml in [wherever you have installed Archi]\plugins\com.archimatetool.model_4.0.0.[timestamp]\model
JB
Thanks for mentioning the correct location, I did a search based on the filename but Windows didn't find one, another reminder to never trust the WIndows search function >:(
Regards,
Peter
Hi Guys,
I really need to check something with you guys. I've been using Flow relationships to model a hell of a lot of stuff, mostly via derived relationships, which according to the ArchiMate 3 relationship tables was all fine and dandy (yes, it's full of bugs). Now that Gerben's "fixed" table has been released, it appears that Artifact can no longer "Flow" to Artifact.
I've put together a basic example of what I have been doing as derived relationships I think? For a number of basic diagrams I simply linked Artifact to Artifact to show that data would flow from one database to another, but now cannot create the derived "red" relationship from this model? Have I been doing this wrong the whole time?
Cheers
Steve
Hi,
I have a bad news for you: I can confirm that Flows between Artifact is not allowed as only Access can targets a passive structure element.
This bug has been introduced in ArchiMate 3.0 because of the new derivation rule for Flow that states that you can move ends 'backward' in a chain of elements connected by structural relationships. So this Flow between Artifact was derived through Artifact Realizes ApplicationComponent AssignedTo ApplicationFunction/Process. So even in this case, this was not meant to model flows from a "data" Artifact to another "data" Artifact, but flows from two applications realised by "executable" Artifacts.
Regards,
JB
Well now I feel silly!
Curse you magic wand!
Back to the drawing board, lots more to learn :)
Hello,
Me again! I'm wading through the output of Archi's Validation tool to fix each of the errors that are highlighted in my model.
One has occurred that I just wanted to check with you guys. I have an Application Function which may trigger one of two other functions, so I used a Junction to say it may trigger Application Function A OR Application Function B.
The spec states that "The relationships that can be used in combination with a junction are all the dynamic relationships, as well as assignment, realization, and association."
Here is a snippet of the model.
So the question, should a flow/trigger from Behavioural elements be allowed to interact with Junctions?
Cheers
Steve
Hi,
That's perfectly valid (and one of the initial use-case in very first version of ArchiMate).
Regards,
JB