There are many meta-models out there. Some large, some small
but they all tend to describe generally the same things albeit using different
names a lot of the time.
Most meta-models have many entities related to the Structure
of the Enterprise. The WHAT; Departments, Locations, Processes, Applications,
etc, etc and most meta-models also allow for the composition and decomposition
of these entities. Although not explicit, there is also the general notion that
these things can exist at different levels of Idealisation/Realisation (one
type of Abstraction) - from the very Ideal at the top (Contextual), to the very
Real at the bottom (Operational).
|
Since Idealisation/Realisation
is the key type of abstraction related to Transformation, do you think that
meta-models should explicitly define and state which entities are associated
with which levels of idealisation/realisation?
|
|
If not, what will you use to
describe structural information in a way that enables transformation?
|
|
If it is not defined, what
problems do you think will result?
|
Over time, many meta-model users and providers realised that
while the structure of something is very important - especially in terms of
being able to change it, there needs to be some other information that ties the
existence of a particular structure up to some kind of requirements or notion
of WHY…
