grouping

[Pascal]

If I gather up  a number of application functions by means of grouping, and I assign a business role to the group: is the result that the business role is assigned indivually to all application functions in the group as well?

thx

pascal

[Mastering ArchiMate]

First, there is ‘result’ really. There are many possible relations that can be derived and not all make sense. The relation is only there is you explicitly make it so.

Derived relations have serious limitations, btw.

Second, I had a quick extra check, but there seems to be nothing in the text of the standard that forbids you to use grouping in derivations, but from the tables in appendix B it seems that they are still excluded (no Assignment from Business Role to Application Function is allowed). Maybe Jean-Baptiste can corroborate this.

G

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArchiMate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-archimate-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-archimate-forum/b7915855-42a6-4a85-9c5b-295de5b786f2%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Pascal Dussart]

Thanks for your input, Gerben.   So what you're  saying is that the relations are not derived explicitly when using grouping, right?

And you're right about the assignment: I did a very bad job at explaining the case (I blame the weather). What I ment to say is that the group of application functions "serve" the business role, and so on

pascal

--
Met vriendelijke groeten  - Best regards

Pascal Dussart
0473 72 47 73

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Mastering ArchiMate <mastering...@gmail.com> wrote:

First, there is ‘result’ really. There are many possible relations that can be derived and not all make sense. The relation is only there is you explicitly make it so.

Derived relations have serious limitations, btw.

Second, I had a quick extra check, but there seems to be nothing in the text of the standard that forbids you to use grouping in derivations, but from the tables in appendix B it seems that they are still excluded (no Assignment from Business Role to Application Function is allowed). Maybe Jean-Baptiste can corroborate this.

G

On 25 Jul 2018, at 13:49, Pascal <pascal....@april10.net> wrote:

If I gather up  a number of application functions by means of grouping, and I assign a business role to the group: is the result that the business role is assigned indivually to all application functions in the group as well?

thx

pascal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArchiMate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-archimate-forum+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Mastering ArchiMate]

On 25 Jul 2018, at 21:43, Pascal Dussart <pascal....@april10.net> wrote:

Thanks for your input, Gerben.   So what you're  saying is that the relations are not derived explicitly when using grouping, right?

No derived relation is derived implicitly, but the derivation mechanism tells you how to derive them yourself (and add them to your model) if you want. However, tooling may offer these derived relations of course by automatic calculation. But all these derived relations may fuzzy your model. The idea of derived relations has serious limitations (see the explanation in the book).

And you're right about the assignment: I did a very bad job at explaining the case (I blame the weather). What I ment to say is that the group of application functions "serve" the business role, and so on

In that case, you could either use a Grouping or an Application Function to aggregate these Application Functions and have the overall Serve the Business Role. In both cases, you cannot (yet :-), there have been suggestions made to change this in ArchiMate, I blogged about these a while back, but the idea originated from Jean-Baptiste) derive from the inside to the served.

Personally, you may wonder why to use Grouping if what you Aggregate are all identical types.

G

[Pascal Dussart]

you may wonder why to use Grouping if what you Aggregate are all identical types.

Fair point. My prime motive was purely aesthetics. A viewpoint with a group(ing) of 10 app.functions and only one serving-relationship from the edge of the grouping-border in the direction of a business process or business role looks a lot more pleasing than with 10 serving-relationships.

I guess this is not entirely the point of Grouping. Looking at your example (views 27 and 33) grouping appears to be a mechanism to "tag" element-constructs using a true element, right? I guess that it is also what I'm trying to do : I have 15 app.functions assigned to the same application component, with 10 of them relevant to one business process and 5 to another. By using Grouping (twice) I'm communicating to the reader that each grouping serves a particular purpose. And I do not rule out the fact that I might add other types to the grouping later on.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten  - Best regards

Pascal Dussart
0473 72 47 73

pascal

G

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-archimate-forum+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

[Mastering ArchiMate]

On 27 Jul 2018, at 08:18, Pascal Dussart <pascal....@april10.net> wrote:

you may wonder why to use Grouping if what you Aggregate are all identical types.

Fair point. My prime motive was purely aesthetics. A viewpoint with a group(ing) of 10 app.functions and only one serving-relationship from the edge of the grouping-border in the direction of a business process or business role looks a lot more pleasing than with 10 serving-relationships.

Yes, there are reasons to group things, for one to minimise relations. But if you group 10 AF you can group them (Aggregate) in a AF.

I guess this is not entirely the point of Grouping. Looking at your example (views 27 and 33) grouping appears to be a mechanism to "tag" element-constructs using a true element, right? I guess that it is also what I'm trying to do : I have 15 app.functions assigned to the same application component, with 10 of them relevant to one business process and 5 to another. By using Grouping (twice) I'm communicating to the reader that each grouping serves a particular purpose. And I do not rule out the fact that I might add other types to the grouping later on.

Sure, but no need to use Grouping for that. Since you’re referring to the book: Section 26.3 has a useful example. Used for another purpose (who’s responsible) but the idea is the same.

G

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-archimate-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-archimate-forum/CAHW7fKsvcgUo60j8Z0cm4b%2BRzCdfwr9aNVrKmUbZsMEvMpmwHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jean-Baptiste Sarrodie]

Hi,

Jumping on that topic...

Derivation rules don't apply to nor involve Grouping. This is stated in "5.6 Derivation Rules": [...] Note that these derivation rules do not work on relationships with grouping [...]

In fact original idea behind Grouping (though not explicitly stated in the standard in its current form) is that a relationship to/from a grouping always involves all members of the Grouping for which the relationship is allowed. So an Application Component which is assigned to a Grouping that contains (ie aggregates or is composed of) several Application Functions is equivalent (without involving any derivation rules) to the Application Component assigned to each Application Function. This is the reason behind some notes that you can find on the standard (e.g. in "5.1.3 Assignment Relationship": [...] If both active structure elements are needed to perform the behavior, the grouping element [...] can be used [...]

Regards,

JB

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:58:45 PM UTC+2, masteringarchimate wrote:

First, there is ‘result’ really. There are many possible relations that can be derived and not all make sense. The relation is only there is you explicitly make it so.

Derived relations have serious limitations, btw.

Second, I had a quick extra check, but there seems to be nothing in the text of the standard that forbids you to use grouping in derivations, but from the tables in appendix B it seems that they are still excluded (no Assignment from Business Role to Application Function is allowed). Maybe Jean-Baptiste can corroborate this.

G

On 25 Jul 2018, at 13:49, Pascal <pascal....@april10.net> wrote:

If I gather up  a number of application functions by means of grouping, and I assign a business role to the group: is the result that the business role is assigned indivually to all application functions in the group as well?

thx

pascal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArchiMate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-archimate-forum+unsub...@googlegroups.com.