A Language for Enterprise Modelling
Architecture provides a means to handle the complexity of modern information-intensive enterprises. To this end, architects need ways to express architectures as clearly as possible: both for their own understanding and for communication with other stakeholders, such as system developers, end users, and managers. Unfortunately, the current situation is that architects in different domains, even within the same organisation, often use their own description techniques and conventions. To date, there is no standard language for describing enterprise architectures in a precise way across domain borders. They are often described either in informal pictures that lack a well-defined meaning, or in detailed design languages (such as UML) that are difficult to understand for non-experts. This frequently leads to misunderstandings that hinder the collaboration of architects and other stakeholders. Also, it makes it very difficult to provide tools for visualisation and analysis of these architectures.
KeywordsBusiness Process Application Layer Business Service Enterprise Architecture Business Object
- Buuren R van, Jonkers H, Iacob, ME, Strating P (2004), Composition of Relations in Enterprise Architecture Models. In Ehrig H et al. (eds.), Graph Transformations, Proc. Second International Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT 2004), Rome, Italy, LNCS 3256, pp. 39–53. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Crystal D (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Davenport T, Short JE (1990), The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign, Sloan Management Review, Summer: 309–330.Google Scholar
- Eertink H, Janssen W, Oude Luttighuis P, Teeuw W, Vissers C (1999), A Business Process Design Language, Proc. 1st World Congress on Formal Methods, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
- Greefhorst, D, Proper, HA (2011), Architecture Principles: The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture. Springer.Google Scholar
- Jonkers H, Lankhorst MM, Buuren R van, Hoppenbrouwers S, Bonsangue M, Van der Torre L (2004), Concepts for Modelling Enterprise Architectures, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, special issue on Architecture in IT, Vol. 13, No. 3, Sept. 2004, pp. 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Object Management Group (2007b), Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.1.2, Final Adopted Specification formal/07-11-02, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/.
- Steen MWA, Lankhorst MM, Wetering RG van de (2002), Modelling Networked Enterprises, in Proc. Sixth International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’02), Lausanne, Switzerland, September, pp. 109–119.Google Scholar
- The Open Group (2011), The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) Version 9.1. The Open Group, Reading, UK. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/.
- The Open Group (2012), ArchiMate 2.0 Specification, Technical Standard, The Open Group, Reading, UK. http://www.opengroup.org/archimate/.
- Van Lamsweerde, A. (2004), Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Roundtrip from Research to Practice. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 4–7.Google Scholar