Advertisement

Abstract

In current business practice, an integrated approach to business and IT is indispensable. In many enterprises, however, such an integrated view of the entire enterprise is still far from reality. To deal with these challenges, an integrated view of the enterprise is needed, enabling impact and change analysis covering all relevant aspects. This need sparked the development of the ArchiMate language. This paper is concerned with documenting some of the key design decisions and design principles underlying the ArchiMate language.

Keywords

Modelling Language Enterprise Architecture Object Management Group Architecture Framework Business Process Modeling Notation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Op ’t Land, M., Proper, H., Waage, M., Cloo, J., Steghuis, C.: Enterprise Architecture – Creating Value by Informed Governance. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification – Final Adopted Specification. Technical Report ptc/03–08–02, OMG (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group: Business process modeling notation, v1.1. OMG Available Specification OMG Document Number: formal/2008-01-17, Object Management Group (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steen, M., Doest, H.t., Lankhorst, M., Akehurst, D.: Supporting Viewpoint–Oriented Enterprise Architecture. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2004), pp. 20–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Buuren, R.v., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Bonsangue, M., Torre, L.v.d.: Concepts for Modeling Enterprise Architectures. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13, 257–288 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Buuren, R., Jonkers, H., Iacob, M.-E., Strating, P.: Composition of relations in enterprise architecture models. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 39–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arbab, F., Boer, F.d., Bonsangue, M., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H., Torre, L.v.d.: Integrating Architectural Models. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 2, 40–57 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Version 8.1.1, Enterprise Edition (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindland, O., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bosma, H., Doest, H.t., Vos, M.: Requirements. Technical Report ArchiMate Deliverabe D4.1, TI/RS/2002/112, Telematica Instituut (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Proper, H., Verrijn–Stuart, A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Towards Utility–based Selection of Architecture–Modelling Concepts. In: Hartmann, S., Stumptner, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Asia–Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2005), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series, vol. 42, pp. 25–36. Australian Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SBVR Team: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR). Technical Report dtc/06–03–02, Object Management Group, Needham, Massachusetts (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Lankhorst
    • 1
  • H. A. Proper
    • 2
    • 3
  • H. Jonkers
    • 4
  1. 1.Telematica InstituutEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CapgeminiUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.BiZZdesignEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations