◄◄◄ Previous Page         


          Next Page ►►►




Where did MACE and MAGMA come from?


In the past, people first considered only structure…

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…


◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►

© 2008-2018 Pragmatic EA Ltd