Key Observations: The Concept Is Not Really a Concept: “Capability” “WHY” The concept is more appropriately a or perhaps a concept “capability” “WHAT” “HOW” than a concept.. In the architecture context it would seem more appropriate to “WHY” designate as the and the mission, need, requirement” “capability” “WHAT” “vision, complex of concepts as the of it all. “WHY” Concepts Not Present: “WHY” In context of the preceding suggestion, the DM2 concept diagram does not really include a concept. “WHY” Link Is Inappropriately Labeled: “Capability”/“Activity” Capability does not require the ability to perform but rather it is the ability to perform; the linking phrase between the concept and the concept doesn’t make “capability” “activity” sense. Link Is Inappropriately Labeled: “Project”/“Resource” The current label on the link between the concept and the concept “project” “resource” doesn’t seem to make sense; the goal of the project is not resources but rather capabilities. Lack of Appropriate Separation in Concepts: The concept is a concept but includes the concept which is “resource” “WHAT” “performer” a concept; this not necessarily inconsistent but suggests some refactoring of the “WHO” diagram may serve to make it clearer. Conclusions: The DM2 Diagram Is Not Semantically Correct and/or Clear: The concept is wrongly labeled as a concept and several of the links “capability” “WHY” between concepts have inappropriate linking phrases as observed above. The DM2 Diagram Is Not Semantically Complete: The DM2 concept diagram does not really include a major concept. The of “WHY” “WHY” Zachman’s framework has to do with mission, stakeholders, goals/objectives, needs, etc which are not sufficiently acknowledged in the current diagram. This is perhaps the most important point in the context of this paper since the current DM2 conceptual model does not acknowledge one of the most important concepts in the context of architecture development i.e. mission/stakeholder need which is the fundamental “WHY”.
Key Observations: The “Capability” Concept Is Not Really a “WHY” Concept: The “capability” concept is more appropriately a “WHAT” or perhaps a “HOW” concept than a “WHY” concept.. In the architecture context it would seem more appropriate to designate “capability” as the “WHAT” and the “vision, mission, need, requirement” complex of concepts as the “WHY” of it all. “WHY” Concepts Not Present: In context of the preceding suggestion, the DM2 concept diagram does not really include a “WHY” concept. “Capability”/“Activity” Link Is Inappropriately Labeled: Capability does not require the ability to perform but rather it is the ability to perform; the linking phrase between the “capability” concept and the “activity” concept doesn’t make sense. “Project”/“Resource” Link Is Inappropriately Labeled: The current label on the link between the “project” concept and the “resource” concept doesn’t seem to make sense; the goal of the project is not resources but rather capabilities. Lack of Appropriate Separation in Concepts: The “resource” concept is a “WHAT” concept but includes the “performer” concept which is a “WHO” concept; this not necessarily inconsistent but suggests some refactoring of the diagram may serve to make it clearer. Conclusions: The DM2 Diagram Is Not Semantically Correct and/or Clear: The “capability” concept is wrongly labeled as a “WHY” concept and several of the links between concepts have inappropriate linking phrases as observed above. The DM2 Diagram Is Not Semantically Complete: The DM2 concept diagram does not really include a major “WHY” concept. The “WHY” of Zachman’s framework has to do with mission, stakeholders, goals/objectives, needs, etc which are not sufficiently acknowledged in the current diagram. This is perhaps the most important point in the context of this paper since the current DM2 conceptual model does not acknowledge one of the most important concepts in the context of architecture development i.e. mission/stakeholder need which is the fundamental “WHY”.
observations_dodaf2._zachmann_framework_apr11.docx