Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

‘Logical’, ‘Abstract’ or ‘Concept’ Instead of ‘Operational’?

The language used in a framework definition is important to its “user interface”. Get it wrong and you build in problems for the long term. It is, however, difficult to get the ‘right’ name - one that is readily understood and where everyone has the same understanding.

In TRAK we have an ‘Operational Perspective’ - that provides the elements and viewpoints with which to describe the problem in terms of need, exchanges and behaviour in a way which is free from implementation or any particular solution or technology. The trouble is that the word ‘operational’ is all too readily associated with the day to day running or operation of the system. This has caused confusion in the rail domain. Of course any confusion can lead to the use of the wrong architectural views or for an unnecessary restriction in scope - all of which can lead to inconsistency and which make it harder to exchange or collaborate on architecture models.

Back to the problem in hand. If we don’t use ‘Operational’ what could we use instead? ‘Logical’ is a possibility. It is used in other frameworks, such as Zachman, where it is a perspective that represents the logical information systems model which is free from the technology (another perspective). It looks as though MODAF would like to use ‘logical’ since the pre-amble to the MoD’s ‘The MODAF Operational (OV) Viewpoint’ states ‘the OV Views illustrate the Logical Architecture of the enterprise; ie whilst they show what is required to conduct an (operational or business) activity, they do not consider how a solution may manifest itself when implemented.’  The trouble is, would the average user equate ‘logical’ with implementation-free or would they associate mathematics, rules or some alternative “Spockian” image with the term?

‘Abstract’ is another candidate. Looking in the New Oxford American Dictionary, produced by the Oxford University Press (OUP),  that comes with the Apple Dictionary application we have:

ab•stract
adjective |ˈabstrakt|existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence : abstract concepts such as love or beauty.

• dealing with ideas rather than events : the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical : we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
• (of a word, esp. a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object : abstract words like truth or equality.
• of or relating to abstract art : abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.

This looks to be promising. It is quite clearly nothing to do with a particular solution or realisation. Is ‘Abstract Perspective’ only a term that an air-head would use? It certainly seems to be better than keeping the current ‘operational’.

Or would it be better just to use ‘Concept’....?

Not easy. The request to change the name has been made on SourceForge and it will be interesting to see what comments or reaction develops.

Whatever the outcome there will have to be some changes on the site wiki…. :-(

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[139][related1_blog]qs8J2SwdREL}

Sharing tags:

• Assessment of the Suitability of an ADL (UML, ArchiMate et al) to Represent TRAK Viewpoints/Views (14% )
• Conformance Assessment vs ISO/IEC 42010:2011 (14% )
• TRAK is a Finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards (14% )
• TRAK Article Published by The Institution of Engineers (Singapore) (14% )
• A MODAF Architecture Description Only Applies to a ‘System of Systems’? (14% )

External Links

• MODAF. The MODAF Operational (OV) Viewpoint.12th February 2009.
• Sourceforge. TRAK Enterprise Architecture Viewpoints. Feature Request #2989344

How ISO/IEC 42010 Controls Architectural Description

ANSI/IEEE Std 1471 :: ISO/IEC 42010 - Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems

ISO/IEC42010:2007 states that ‘most architects must work within an architecture framework’ where this is defined as ‘a predefined set of concerns, stakeholders, viewpoints and viewpoint correspondence rules; established to capture common practice for architecture descriptions within specific domains or user communities’.

It controls architectural modelling at a high level by requiring architecture viewpoints that specify what concerns a particular view answers and what content a view must contain. It does not specify how the modelling is done or what presentation language must be used, for example UML, SysML, BPMN.

ISO/IEC 42010:2007 Conceptual Framework for Architecture Description

UPDATE. The re-issue of the standard as ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 changes the underlying conceptual metamodel in the standard. This is shown on ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 website.

IEEE 1471 does not specify any particular one because it states that these are specific to the needs of a particular domain and there is not, as yet, any consensus on generic architecture frameworks. 

In ISO 42010:2007 it specifies that an analysis be undertaken of the consistencies across the architectural views and any known inconsistencies be identified. Where does this consistency arise from, however, and what is the scope? It is perfectly possible for an architecture description comprising a set of models to be self-consistent. The problem is that another architect can choose to model using different object types and whilst again consistent the 2 architects will have produced 2 architecture descriptions that can’t easily be exchanged or re-used.

IEEE 1471 is evolving and not only has the name changed to better reflect the application of architecture modelling - ‘Systems and Software Engineering - Architecture Description’ [draft 7, 25th January 2010]. It also has more on architecture frameworks and states that

Correspondences and correspondence rules as specified in 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 may be used to express, record, enforce and analyze consistency between models, views and other AD elements.

IEEE 1471 is definitely heading in the right direction and provides useful principles and rules. Simply making a reference to IEEE 1471, however, is not sufficient in order to control architectural modelling to the level needed to be able to maximise the likelihood of success for the exchange of architecture descriptions (or models). Correspondence rules are necessary but there are potential problems with sets of text-based rules (this affects any requirement collection). A metamodel defines that only the allowed element types and relationships that can be used in a model or architecture description. In essence it provides the architect with a mandated language of nouns (element types) and verbs (relationships) to describe the system of interest. It is also visual and a very concise form of specification. There will always be the need for additional rules to specify consistency between views for the system of interest but having a metamodel is essential to a consistent set of building blocks from which to construct the views.

I’d argue strongly that having a declared metamodel is fundamental to defining an architecture framework and that without one you can’t hope to control consistency of modelling or meaning (semantics).

Even with a well-defined and controlled architecture framework there will be problems in exchanging architecture descriptions (and models) since modelling is a creative art providing many ways of modelling a particular thing and we have local or personal modelling styles. If we don’t share or have good access to a central set of definitions which includes elements and probably agreed boundaries (i.e. agreed understanding of the system breakdown structure) it is likely that elements will have different semantics.

IEEE 1471 is a good start and an architecture framework with a metamodel helps, but there is a lot more to put in place to be able to successfully exchange and collaboratively develop architecture descriptions (and models).

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[6165][related1_blog]qs8J2SwdREL}

Sharing tags:

• Improving Consistency for Tools - ‘TRAK. Implementation. Architecture Description Elements’ Document (40% )
• Conformance Assessment vs ISO/IEC 42010:2011 (30% )
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture Description Released (30% )
• Keep Clear Separation Between the Concerns that Each Architecture View Addresses (10% )
• A MODAF Architecture Description Only Applies to a ‘System of Systems’? (10% )

External Links

• Wikipedia - IEEE 1471
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 website

Thoughts - “The TRAK Enterprise”

This article presents some musings on how TRAK as an enterprise might be represented and how it might work. Needless to say there is an architecture description underpinning this!

• Capability Perspective - what are the likely goals?
• Concept Perspective - logical needs, connectivity & exchanges
• Solution Perspective - aspects of a possible solution

Concept Perspective

What Does the TRAK Enterprise Consist of - Conceptually?

If TRAK is considered to be a standard then what would we need to maintain it, what would would we need to support the users (architects, tool vendors, browsers etc) and how does it fit together? Indeed where does it stop and something else start i.e. what is the boundary of the ‘TRAK Enterprise’ "system"?

Fig. 1 - CV-01 The Needs of "The TRAK Enterprise"

Figure 1, TRAK::CV-01 - The Needs of "The TRAK Enterprise", attempts to show a boundary - light blue background - within which the ‘TRAK Enterprise’ might exist and logically how it depends on things outside the boundary (and vice versa).

The logical things inside the ‘TRAK Enterprise’ boundary listed below in Table 1.

The logical things outside the ‘TRAK Enterprise’ boundary are listed below in Table 2.

Of course this isn’t quite right yet as it should also include ‘Training Providers’. This is one of the points of modelling and trying to draw something visually - it slows you down and forces you to think. The metamodel provides the skeleton upon which you hang your ideas and it also provides a sort of filter to view the real world and tease of the types of thig it consists of.

Anyway, more to follow as the thoughts unfold ....

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[6144][related1_blog]qs8J2SwdREL}

Sharing tags:

• Things that You Think That Are Going to be Simple Never Are (17% )
• Assessment of the Suitability of an ADL (UML, ArchiMate et al) to Represent TRAK Viewpoints/Views (17% )
• Conformance Assessment vs ISO/IEC 42010:2011 (17% )
• TRAK is a Finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards (17% )
• TRAK Article Published by The Institution of Engineers (Singapore) (17% )

External Links

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >