How was Training?

more

“A good use of time, interesting subject common goals.” - Senior Technology Architect, Freshfields, UK, Sep 2010

Recommend PEAF?

more

“Yes - Seriously I don't know .. However I liked it .. I may recommend all my architects to spend some time and understand PEAF and ask them to come back whether we can use it for our customers. Since they have very depth knowledge on the Business processe” - Senior Architect, SLK Software Services Pvt LTD, India, Jan 2015





Here we see how the three fundamental ontologies from POET are woven together.

On the right we show the Structural ontology - MACE. On the left the Transformational ontology - MAGMA. Down the middle the Ontology for the fundamental parts of all Enterprises - DOTS.

Looking at the centre, it is the transformation domain we are interested in but we set that domain in the context of the Direction Domain above which drives it and the Operations domain below which it “delivers” into. (It should be noted however, that the transformation domain could also “deliver” into the Direction, Support or Transformation domains, but only the Operation domain is shown for clarity)

The words in the boxes give some examples of the Structural and Transformational information you would expect to see at each level.

 

In what way does your Enterprise consider Transformational as well as Structural models at all levels?

What ontologies and meta-models are you using?

How do they map to, and fit into, the POET Ontology?

Are they any gaps or overlaps?

If there are gaps and or overlaps, is it useful to know that?

What will you do to fill the gaps and remove the overlaps?

 

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►












 

© 2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd