A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling Richard Martin Tinwisle Corporation Bloomington, Indiana

Edward Robertson Computer Science Department Indiana University

© Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling • Framework Principles Structure, Connections, Views, Constraints • Usage Observations Prototypes, Time, Purpose • Archetypes Zachman, ISO 15704, ISO/CEN 19439, ISO/IEC 15288 • Complements Prototypes, Purpose, Artifacts, Change A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

1

What is a Framework?

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

A containment structure • context for model artifacts • interconnections between models • access to model components • model fidelity and consistency NOT a programming framework. A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

2

Structure

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

A space of one or more dimensions meta-model:

Arrangement

• Ordinant (label) - Ordered, Unordered • Decomposing (path)

Scale

• Scope (general to specific) • Abstract (abstract to concrete) • Detail (coarse to fine)

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

3

Connections Structural linkage along and among dimensions

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

meta-model:

• Dependence • Equivalence • Transitivity

Ordered Decomposing Unordered Purpose Recursion Fidelity, Consistency

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

4

Views

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Different ways of looking at artifacts meta-model:

• • • •

Filter along a dimension From one dimension to another Rearrange a framework – derive a view Use selection and projection

Formal meta-model harder than mechanism A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

5

Constraints

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Evaluate conformance to a standard

meta-model:

• Structure – a place for everything of interest • Connection – within and between dimensions, typically binary • View – something must be placed to be seen, often used to define constraints • Distinguish model from instance constraints • Formal mechanisms within one model A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

6

Artifact Prototypes

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Frameworks are conceived with prototype artifacts in mind • Framework artifacts are models we build both formally and informally • Frameworks partition artifacts along conceptual categories (dimensions) with coordinates and paths • Prototypes range over all enterprise aspects – automated, mechanical, human • Framework expression is the realized model instances derived from prototype artifacts A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

7

Entities in Time

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

The characterization of a framework with respect to time informs us about the nature of change in the framework’s context. • Continuant - identity continues to be recognizable over some extended interval of time • Occurrent – identity is not stable during any interval of time. (see SOWA) A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

8

Continuants / Occurrents

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Continuants are wholly present (i.e., all their parts are present) at any time they are present. • Occurrents just extend in time by accumulating different temporal parts, so that, at any time they are present,they are only partially present. • Continuants are entities that are in time. Lacking temporal parts all their parts flow with them. • Occurrents are entities that happen in time. Their temporal parts are fixed in time. (see Masolo, Borgo, Guarino, et. al.) A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

9

Enterprise Description • Enterprise as product is continuant • Enterprise as process is occurrent

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Purpose emerges from an ordered dependency • Dependency is not necessarily chronology • Purpose can be found in both continuant and occurrent enterprise descriptions • Frameworks address continuant and occurrent purposes in enterprise description – but a single framework cannot do both! A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

10

Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

E NTE R P R IS E AR C HITE C TUR E - A F R AME WO R K DATA

What

F UNC TIO N

How

Lis t o f P ro ce s s e s th e Bus in e s s P e rfo rm s

NE TWO R K

Where

P E O P LE

Who

TIME

When

Lis t o f E ve nts S ig n ific a n t to th e Bu s in e s s

TM

MOTIVATIO N

Why

Lis t o f Bus in e s s G o a ls /S tra t

S CO P E (C O NTE XTUAL)

Lis t of Thin g s Im p o rta nt to the Bus in e s s

Planner

E NTITY = C la s s of Bu s ine s s Thing

F un c tion = C la s s o f Bus in e s s P ro ce s s

No de = Ma jor Bus in e s s Loc a tion

P e op le = Ma jor O rga n iza tions

Tim e = Ma jor Bu s ine s s E ve nt

E nd s /Me a ns =Ma jo r Bu s . G oa l/ C ritica l S u cc e s s Fa ctor

e .g. S e m a ntic Mo d e l

e .g . Bu s in e s s P ro ce s s Mo d e l

e .g. Lo g is tic s Ne two rk

e .g . Work F low Mod e l

e .g. Ma s te r S ch e d u le

e .g. Bu s in e s s P la n

E n t = Bu s in e s s E n tity R e ln = Bus in e s s R e la tion s hip

P ro c. = Bu s in e s s P ro ce s s I/O = Bu s ine s s R e s o urce s

Nod e = Bu s in e s s Lo ca tio n Lin k = Bu s in e s s Lin ka g e

P e o p le = O rga n iza tio n Un it Wo rk = Wo rk P ro du ct

Tim e = Bu s in e s s E ve nt C ycle = Bu s in e s s C ycle

E nd = Bu s in e s s O b je ctive Me a n s = Bus in e s s S tra te g y

e .g . Lo gica l Da ta Mo d e l

e .g. "App lic a tion Arch ite ctu re "

e .g . "Dis tribu te d S ys te m Arc hite ctu re "

e .g . Hum a n Inte rfa ce Arc hite c ture

E nt = Da ta E n tity R e ln = Da ta R e la tion s h ip

P ro c .= Ap p lica tio n F u n ctio n I/O = Us e r Vie ws

Nod e = I/S F u nctio n (P ro ce s s o r, S to ra ge , e tc) Lin k = Lin e C h a ra c te ris tics

Pe op le = R ole Work = De live ra ble

Tim e = S ys te m E ve n t C yc le = P ro ce s s ing C yc le

E n d = S truc tu ra l As s e rtion Me a n s =Actio n As s e rtio n

TE C HNO LO G Y MO DE L (P HYS IC AL)

e .g . P hys ica l Da ta Mo d e l

e .g . "S ys te m De s ig n "

e .g . "S ys te m Arc hite c tu re "

e .g. P re s e n ta tion Arc hite cture

e .g . C on tro l S tructu re

e .g. R u le De s ig n

Builder

E n t = S e gm e n t/Ta ble /e tc. R e ln = Po in te r/Ke y/e tc.

P ro c.= C om p u te r F u nc tio n I/O = S cre e n /De vice Fo rm a ts

No de = Ha rd wa re /S ys te m S o ftwa re Link = Lin e S p e c ifica tio ns

e .g. Da ta De fin itio n

e .g . "P ro gra m "

e .g . "Ne twork Arch ite ctu re "

E n t = F ie ld R e ln = Ad d re s s

P ro c.= La n g u a ge S tm t I/O = C o n trol Blo ck

Nod e = Add re s s e s Lin k = P ro toc ols

e .g . DATA

e .g . F UNC TIO N

e .g . NE TWO R K

E NTE R P R IS E MO DE L (C O NC E P TUAL)

Owner

S YS TE M MO DE L (LO G IC AL)

Designer

DE TAILE D R E P R E S E NTATIO NS (O UT-O F C O NTE XT) SubContractor F UNC TIO NING E NTE R P R IS E

Lis t of Loc a tion s in wh ic h the Bus in e s s O pe ra te s

Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement - (810) 231-0531

Lis t o f O rga niz a tion s Im p orta nt to the Bus in e s s

P e op le = Us e r Work = S c re e n Form a t e .g . S e cu rity Arch ite ctu re

P e op le = Ide n tity Work = J ob

e .g . O R G ANIZATIO N

e .g . P roce s s ing S tru cture

Tim e = E xe cu te C ycle = C o m p o n e nt C ycle

Planner

E NTE R P R IS E MO DE L (C O NC E P TUAL)

Owner

e .g ., Bu s in e s s R u le Mod e l

S YS TE M MO DE L (LO G IC AL)

Designer TE C HNO LO G Y C O NS TR AINE D MO DE L (P HYS IC AL)

En d = C on d ition Me a n s = Ac tio n

e .g. Tim in g De fin itio n

e .g . R ule S p e cifica tio n

Tim e = Inte rrup t C ycle = Ma ch in e C ycle

E n d = S u b -co nd itio n Me a ns = S te p

e .g. S C HE DULE

S COP E (C O NTE XTUAL)

e .g . S TR ATE G Y

Builder

DE TAILE D R E P R E S E NTATIO NS (O UT-O F C O NTE XT) SubContractor

F UNC TIO NING E NTE R P R IS E

Copyright - John A. Zachman, Zachman International

(used with permission)

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

11

Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

(Information System version)

R

I What

Entity Relation

How

I/O Process

Where

Who

Node Link

People Work

When TimeCycle

Why

Ends Means

Context

Important Proceses Operating People and Events and Goals and performed locations groups cycles strategies things

Owner

Semantic model Logical

Designer data model Builder Out of context

B-process model

Logistics network

Work flow model

Master schedule

Business plan

Application Distributed Human Processing Business model system interface structure rule model Rule design

Physical data model

System design

System arch.

Presentation arch.

Control structure

Data definition

Program code

Network arch.

Security arch

Rule speciTiming fication definition

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

12

Zachman Recursion i1

i2

i3 context

r1

….

r2

….

r3

….

i4

i5

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

i6

out of context A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

13

Zachman Properties

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Role dimension is ordinant, ordered, and purposive • Purposive dimension is timeless • Interrogative dimension is ordinant and unordered • Primitive model contents facilitate complex model composition • Recursive decomposition (frameworks nested in frameworks) A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

14

ISO 15704: Annex A - GERAM Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology

Generic Partial Particular

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

}

Subdivision according to genericity

Customer service Management and control Software Hardware

} }

Subdivision according to purpose of activity Subdivision according to physical manifestation

Resource Organisation Information Function

}

Subdivision according to model content

Machine Human

}

Subdivision according to means of implementation

Views {

{

{

Instantiation Identification Concept Requirements Preliminary design Design Detailed design Implementation Operation Decommission

Life-cycle phases

Reference Architecture

Particular Architecture

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

© Copyright P. Bernus (used with permission)

15

ISO/CEN FDIS 19439

genericity

design specification implementation description

decommission definition

ise

domain operation

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

vie w

requirements definition

ng

function view

concept definition

Reference Catalog

lli

domain identification

Particular level

organization view

rt pa

r la u ic

l

mo de

r pa

l tia

ve le

resource view

le

l ve e l

information view

ne e g

ric

l ve

en te rp r

enterprise model phase

CIM Systems Integration: Framework for Enterprise Modelling

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

not defined at domain operation phase 16

19439 – Model Dimension

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Model – the purposive ordinant dimension ordered by coordinates corresponding to the phases of the enterprise model life-cycle. Do C R D I O Dc

Enterprise model phase: – – – – – –

–

Domain identification Concept definition Requirements definition Design specification Implementation description domain Operation Decommission definition

Identify Elaborate Use Dispose

Emphasize model development process for process oriented modeling. A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

17

19439 - View Dimension

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

View – an unordered ordinant dimension with pre-defined or user selected coordinates that partition facts in the integrated model relevant to particular interests and context.

Enterprise modelling view: Function - the system behavior, mutual dependencies, and influence of elements during function execution Information - the material and information used and produced in the course of operations Resource - capabilities of people and technological components Organization- authority and decision-making responsibility during operations A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

18

19439 – Genericity Dimension

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Genericity – an ordered ordinant dimension that reflects 19439 as a “standard” framework. Enterprise genericity level:

• Generic • Partial

- reusable modeling language constructs -

prototype models of industry segment or industrial activity

Reference catalog

• Particular - models of a particular enterprise domain

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

19

19439 - Recursion Enterprise operations can model new enterprises either from its own particular models or using reference constructs and partial models.

Enterprise A

Do (operational) C R D I O Dc

reference catalog R

DoA ⊇ DoB

Do Do C C DoR R R D D I I Dc Dc

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

Do C R D I O Dc

∪ DoA ⊇

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

(new)

Enterprise B

Do C DoC R D I O Dc (new)

Enterprise C 20

phase artifacts

19439 – Life History

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Do C R D I O Dc

time

a complete lifecycle

a life history pictogram of related life-cycles (point-in-time solution set) Adapted from P. Bernus, Griffith University, Australia

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

21

ISO/IEC 15288 Systems

engineering – System life cycle processes

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Common process framework covering life cycle of man-made systems…spans conception of ideas through to retirement • For acquiring and supplying systems • Assess and improve life cycle processes • Comprehensive set from which an organization can construct system life cycle models • Can be applied at any level of system structure and throughout life cycle

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

22

15288 - Structure

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

A degenerative case where framework structure is trivial but has many constraints that govern instances, e.g., Modularity – maximal cohesiveness of

the functions of a process and minimal coupling among processes. Ownership – a process is associated with a responsibility. Properties – the purposes, outcomes and activities for a process

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

23

15288 – Dimensions

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Process Group – a hierarchic arrangement where enterprise processes manage project processes composed of technology processes all mediated by agreement processes Life cycle – minimal normative requirement “A life cycle model that is comprised of stages shall be established…The purpose and outcomes shall be defined for each stage of the life cycle.” A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

24

15288 - Process Groups

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

• Agreement – define activities that establish

agreement between internal/external entities

• Enterprise – manage capability to acquire and supply through project initiation, support and control

• Project – establish and evoke project plans, assess achievement, control execution

• Technical – define the activities that enable functions to optimize benefits and reduce risks of technical decisions and actions

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

25

15288 - Process Hierarchy Enterprise Environment Mgmt Investment Mgmt Project Planning Risk Mgmt

System Life Cycle Processes Mgmt

Resource Mgmt Project Assessment

Configuration Mgmt

Quality Mgmt

< 11p, 21o, 34a >

Project Control

Decision-making

Information Mgmt

Stakeholder Requirements Definition

Validation Transition

Requirements Analysis Architectural Design

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Verification Integration

Implementation A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

< 16p, 35o, 61a > Operation Maintenance Disposal

< 34p, 53o, 96a > 26

15288 - Life Cycle

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Informative guidance for life cycle stages 15288 Stage

Concept Development Production Utilization Support Retirement

19439 Phase

Domain Concept Requirement Design Implementation Operation Decommission

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

27

15288 - Recursion

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Need for services from a System-of-Interest

Concept system Concept

Development

Production

Utilization

Support

Retirement

System-of-Interest services to its operational environment

Development system Concept

Development

Production

Utilization

Support

Retirement

Production system Concept

Development

Production

Utilization

Support

Retirement

Support system Concept

Development

Production

Utilization

Support

Retirement

Retirement system

Requirements

Concept

Concept

Development

Development

Production

Production

Utilization

Utilization

Support

Support

Retirement

Retirement

System-of-Interest A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

28

Archetype Dimension Summary

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Zachman – Role {Context, Owner, Designer, Builder, Out-of-context} Interrogative {What, How, Where, Who, When, Why} ISO\CEN FDIS 19439 – Model {Domain, Concepts, Requirements, Design, Implementation, Operation, Decommission} View {Function, Information, Resource, Organization} Genericity {Generic, Partial, Particular} ISO 15288 – Process Group {Agreement, Enterprise, Project, Technical} A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

29

Prototype Models Zachman - interrogative models {entityrelationship, input-process-output, node-link, people–work, time–cycle, ends–means} Zachman - cell models {Semantic Model, System Design, Control Structure, Business Plan, etc.}

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

19439 - constructs {domain, business process, enterprise activity, event, enterprise object, resource, capability, decision centre, etc.} 19439 - partial models {industry sector, company size, national variation, etc.} 15288 – process definitions { 25 processes consisting of 63 purposes, 123 outcomes, and 208 activities (in 33 pages of text) A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

30

Purposive Dimension

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Zachman has a continuant purposive dimension (Role) and therefore serves well in an analytic resource and reference mode. It is always all

there – either explicitly or implicitly.

19439 has an occurrent purposive dimension

(Model Phase) and therefore serves well in a realization and operational mode. It provides the point-in-time solutions we use.

15288 has a decompositional purposive dimension

(Process Group) with descriptive process artifacts suitable for use in Zachman or 19439. A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

31

phase artifacts

Different Life History Do C R D I O Dc

19439 a complete life-cycle

role artifacts

time IC O D B OC

Zachman

a neverending saga A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

The appearance of artifacts in time imposes a temporal order on the purposive dimension of 19439, whereas the Zachman purposive dimension order is strictly the result of dependency among artifacts. 32

Taking a Snapshot

A Zachman continuant frame (z) can participate in an 19439 occurrent frame (p) p1 Do

z

Τ1 Τ2

for ICz ⊇ Dop and ICz ⊇ Dop , 1

2

Τ1[z] = [p1], Τ2[z] = [p2] A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

C R D I O Dc

p2 Do C R D I O Dc

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

15288 processes from “how” column map to p1 and p2 function views 33

Populating with Artifacts i

p1

i3

i2

Do C R D I

c

r1

Do C 1 R D I

c

r2

i4

i5

i6 Τ2-1

ICz Do C R D I

r3

Do C R D I O Dc

p2

c

15288 process

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

OCz

for ICz ⊇ Dop and ICz ⊇ Dop , Τ1-1[p1] ⊆ [z] and Τ2-1[p2] ⊆ [z] 1

2

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

34

Profile of Change

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

To-Be

As-Is

(analysis)

(realization) 15288 – Stakeholder Requirements Definition Process

r1

Architectural Design Process

r2

Implementation Process

r3

Transition Process

EBOK Do

C

R

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

D

I

O 35

Managing Change

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

To respond to a change in the environment of z, say widget W for customer C requires a new process P, we use components of continuant z to instantiate the occurrent p that realizes the new process operation in one of two ways:

or

TW,C[z] = [pW,C] M : z → z’ TW,C[z’] = [p’W,C]

document the current P modify z for new process create new process realization

TW,C[z] = [pW,C] document the current P RW,C : pW,C → p’W,C realize new process P’ T-1W,C[p’W,C] ⊆ [z’] document new p in z A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

36

Comparative Summary

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Zachman is the most comprehnsive of the three presented. Zachman holds primitive models while 19439 extracts those primitives and composes views. Zachman provides a conceptual partitioning as a major focus whereas the other two focus on support for methodological approaches. A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

37

Approaching Frameworks

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

Goal is guidance for constructing and implementing frameworks. Knowing the model space facilitates model reuse. Practice

Principles

A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

Formalism

38

References

Principles Observations Archetypes Complements

A. T. Bahill and C. Briggs. The Systems Engineering Started in the Middle Process: A Consensus of Systems Engineers and Project Managers. Systems Engineering, 4(2), 2001. C. Masolo, S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, A. Oltramari, L. Schneider, The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies Preliminary Report, ISTC-CNR, Italy, 2002. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15704:2000 Industrial automation systems – Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies. Geneva. International Organization for Standardization and European Committee for Standardization. ISO/CEN FDIS 19439 ISO/CEN parallel enquiry draft prEN ISO 19439 – Enterprise Integration – Framework for Enterprise Modelling. Brussels and Geneva, 2003. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 15288:2002 Information Technology – Life Cycle Management – System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. PDTR 19760 Systems Engineering – Guide for ISO/IEC 15288 (System Life Cycle Processes). Geneva, 2002. J. A. Zachman. A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 1987 J. F. Sowa. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Conceptual Foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing., Pacific Grove, CA 2000. ( also see http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm, September, 2003) J. F. Sowa and J. A. Zachman. Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 1992. R. Martin and E. Robertson. A Formal Enterprise Architecture Framework to Support Multi-model Analysis. Proceedings of the Fifth CAiSE\IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Stockholm, 2000. R. Martin and E. Robertson, Formalization of Multi-level Zachman Frameworks, 1999, http://www.cs.indiana.edu/Research/techreports/TR522.shtml A Comparison of Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture Modeling © Copyright 2003 by R. Martin and E. Robertson

39