How was Training?


I liked the course a lot, give me a lot of clarity of what EA means and how large and holistic it is. Even though a read the materials on the web only until we got the course I could get the meaning of them - Associate Director (EA), PPDI, USA, Sep 2010

Recommend PEAF?


No - Haven't really spent enough time on it - Principle Architect, 0, USA, Jan 2015

  Introduction   Context   Methods   Artefacts   Culture   Environment   Adoption  




<< Previous <<

>> Next >>

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...


2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd