Talk:Zachman Framework

1479: 3197:* Related to the image, if you count, it is not "half" the icons. Of the 5 rows in question, of the 30 icons, 27 are essentially identical. Exceptions are: Row 1, number 3; row 2, number 2; row 3, number 2. The others are the same. Therefore let us stop discussing this and one of us create an acceptable use image. The new image can then be the high level image that is referenced. And since the order of the rows is not important, I suggest we go: why, how, what, who, where, when. If you want I can create an image that we can co-edit. I also propose that we use text only in the cells -- the icons are (IMO) mainly decorative. 1310: 1435: 502: 1447: 1408: 1531:* Therefore, unless a copy of a contract can be produced by the employee of the VA who asserts it is in the public domain showing such a release, we cannot simply take the word of some unknown employee. This image does not conform to Knowledge standards as being released into the public domain, as the employee does not have the authority to release that trademarked image. And it doesn't conform to any of the "free license" criteria. Therefore the image may not be displayed. That also goes for the image in all those other presentations as well. Those are all violations of 825:

that EA is asked to solve. You do not need ZF to perform Enterprise Architecture, and having ZF doesn't help you to perform EA duties. It is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient, and inasmuch, does not represent the actual practice of Enterprise Architecture as it has evolved and is practiced today. Nothing in the article as it presently exists would lead the reader to be aware of these facts. As a result, the article has wandered away from an impartial treatment of the subject and moved openly into tacit advertisement.

4312:

Row and between the meta entities of any one Cell and the Cell above it and the Cell below it. That is, the Framework Cells are horizontally and vertically integrated. Each meta entity in each Cell potentially could be related to any other meta entity in its Row and to either meta entity in the Cell above and to either meta entity in the Cell below." Granted, we are taking about potential relationships as reflected in the Zachman Framework. Actual relationships among completed cells would describe an actual enterprise.

2665: 4531:

from the intro. If someone wants to make a case why ZF should be considered an ontology, then perhaps a section in the article can be dedicated to that discussion (with citations to original articles that analyze the use of the term "ontology" with respect to the ZF). If anyone can find an indepdendent citation (someone not associated with ZIFA) in a respected publication (not the blogosphere) that refers to the ZF as an ontology, I'm all ears. Controversial claims do not belong in the intro for an article. --

1420: 412: 4592:

entities that comprise and describe anything, and not just enterprises or their information systems. The "Zachman Enterprise Framework," which is really what this article is about I might add, is one of many possible applications of the Zachman Framework, and, yes, it could involved computerized information systems if that is the technology used in the building of a given enterprise. But I don't think it would then follow that the meaning of "ontology" as used in information science would then apply.

388: 1786:

vital issue. The Strategy has all of the attributes of a successful undertaking: Enterprise vision, business and information technology collaboration, and top management support. I was also impressed by the Department’s realization that Enterprise Architecture is actually a business issue, not a technical issue. And I was extremely pleased that the 20 VA delegates to this Enterprise Architecture Innovation Team represented equal numbers of business executives and information technology executives.

2276: 4070:

reality is used primarily (I would say entirely but there are probably the isolated data architect here or there) by enterprise architects. Why he added the bottom row I do not know because it is never anywhere described with real world models or artifacts. Perhaps he just liked the symmetry of 6 by 6. So I think we should retain the sentence but I agree with your point about the intro. Perhaps it should be relocated to the Topics section under "Models and Cells". What do you think?

3521: 1520:* It is pretty simple. You say: "Every company knows that if I US federal departement creates new graphical work based on their ideas that work is in the public domain." This not a correct statement. Having worked in consulting I can tell you there are two approaches to intellectual capital when contracting with a client. Stating most simple: (a) Anything you produce for them is owned by them. This is rare. And (b) anything you produce for them may be used by them and reused by them 422: 533: 3404: 2807:

detail of the image, and focus on the similarities of that one detail. I think there is a lot more to it... then just the icons used to illustrate the cells of the Framework. You could also look at the image as a whole, and details as: the way the matrix is constructed; the colours used in the frame; the colours used in the background; the lettertypes; the exact text used; and .... don't in the background the existence of possible other originals which could have been used.

1558:* I don't see why it is an issue anyway. We aren't talking about the concept of the framework here. We are talking about an image. They are separate. It is perfectly possible to have valid and legal textual material and then provide reference links to the trademarked image, without posting the trademarked image on Knowledge. They don't care if anyone prints it. Knowledge just doesn't have the right to post it and assert it as being in the public domain -- since it isn't. 144: 4681:(AF)', this is the current term used to describe the metamodel that defines the terminology of EA. Note that as (Noran, 2003) shows, the Zachman Framework is not exactly what we would call a ‘life cycle architecture’, there is a clear connection between a life cycle architecture and the Zachman Framework, which makes either of these qualify as Architecture Frameworks. The ‘technical trick’ of ISO15704:2000 is that it is actually Framework agnostic... 71: 53: 22: 927:

Marcel and others have been worthwhile. I'll look into the personal Knowledge page thing. In the meantime, I assure you there is no conflict of interest. I don't work for Zachman International, if that is what you mean. Secondary sources of information is OK as long as they are correct. Secondary sources such as the VA tutorial depicting an incorrectly labelled image of the old version of the Zachman Framework is not OK, in my opinion.

3251:. It might seems like a strange solution, but maybe the whole copyright claim resolves itself if we (or better I) stop pretending the VA Zachman Framework is a representation of the Zachman Framework. Maybe this is the "mistake" I made from the beginning... or better: This is the new perspective I got from the ongoing discussion. I allready separated those images in Wikicommons by putting them in a separate directory concering the 1491: 4527:

said things that the cited article did not say. That is original work, and does not belong in Knowledge. I went to the source material (Sessions article) and copied the description of the framework, verbatim, from the source to the article. Grammatical changes are certainly appropriate, but re-editing the sentence, over and over, to the point where it disagrees with the sources is not.

4971: 2694: 810:

available and easily referenced criticisms of the Zachman Framework. Without making any effort to discuss the limitations of the framework, why it is largely ignored in wide swaths of both business and industry, and has been completely superceded by more recent frameworks, the article reads like an advertisement for a commercial organization: ZIFA. This causes me great concern.

4176:

any cell. Thus a server will have a location -- and going down the location (where) column that location will be more precisely defined (e.g. data center, room, rack, location in rack, etc.) But the mapping between the server and the location never occurs in the framework itself -- those are completely separate. Same for an owner (who) -- the server will have an owner.

1253:

image is in the public domain." This assertion is false. A federal employee who makes a copy of a trademarked and copyrighted image and then posts it does not, simply because they are a federal employee who made the copy as part of their duties, make the image a public domain image. The image is not in the public domain. Therefore it cannot be used in Knowledge.

4248:

associated with multiple other entities (not parents) would be a sub-process (a child in a larger process model) being performed by (associated with) more than one role in an organization or at more than one location, etc. The associations among the cell models of a completed framework are many-to-many, not child-parent as seen in hierarchical taxonomies.

1092:

are several variants now of Data Flow Diagrams - the current incarnation with circles doesn't look much like the older version with rectangles, but that doesn't really matter. If an old diagram or tool works, there should be no problem using it. There would only be a problem if the OGC tried to stop anyone using diagrams from older versions of SSADM.

4349:

are usually labeled, and often directional. An ontological relationship is never "any-to-any." The fact that ZF not only allows "any-to-any" relationships, but explicitly requires that users consider all relationships to be in this mold means that the term "ontology" is inappropriate. I would like to stick to "classification scheme." --

3788:. Really that might be its own article. It is a Zachman Framework influenced framework, but the Zachman Framework is not a methodology. Never has been. It is an ontology (or taxonomy if you prefer), but it has never been a methodology. So perhaps the "One-VA Enterprise Architecture" should become its own article and cross link to both the 4284:

unstructured. They are "any-to-any" relationships. Unfortunately, that means that they are not relationships at all. The reality is that ZF is a classification scheme. The English language does not have a single elegant word that means "classification scheme." The closest we have come to are the words "taxonomy" and "ontology".

889:

hold conversations with him, on this page, we cannot know if his contribution is, in fact, a conflict of interest. I call upon Phogg2 to provide a sufficiently clear and consise description of himself and his interest in this subject on his personal wikipedia page, as most of the other editors have done.

4547:

related. The other meaning of ontology adopted by artifical intelligence and computer science has more to do with specifying the language used to define concepts. This latter meaning obviously does not apply, but I think the first one does. I shall try and find third party references for consideration.

3299:

center with this new image). I haven't checked all text yet, but I trust it is all right for now. Now about the lay out. I would advice not to create a lay-out similar to the 1992 ZF version. This could be confusing in the article as well. But again I would like to leave it to you, for now. Ok...?? --

4411:

Sorry for my incorrect English above. I wanted to state that "I oppose to that exact definition, which is not the general opinion in the field". Secondary sources (those who don't just repeat Zachman's literaly) neither conform the Zachman Framework is an ontology, nor that it is a methodology. It is

4364:

John Zachman takes great pains to explain that the Framework is not a methodology. Shouldn't this trump all references that mistakenly refer to it as a methodology? I understand the need to reflect information from third party sources, but don't we have an obligation not to reproduce information that

4175:

The domains are thus the columns, the cells are the concepts or entities, and the relationships are internal to each cell. It is also true that cross domain relationships exist but they are not expressed in the framework. For example, a material (entity) will have a location. That is not expressed in

1637:

There is a lot of difference. You where explaining about how companies keep their copyright when they work with the US Federal departments. If so, they always add a copyright mark to show it. You see this all the time...!!! Now the VA presentation is not made by Zachman, but inspired on his work. And

1176:

Maybe the leading section (before TOC) can encapsulate the origins and latest incarnation in one go. Any diagram at the top should probably be the most recent version, or the one most commonly used. The problem though, is to cite reputable references, rather than using original research (i.e. our own

1091:

For example, the OGC maintain the SSADM standard (currently at version 4). The older versions have not disappeared and have not been invalidated, there's just a newer official version that is being maintained and developed. Someone using diagrams from the older versions would not be wrong, e.g. there

4289:

The actual uses of those terms, outside information science, are radically different. Taxonomy is most frequently used in life sciences to refer to a classification scheme that is admittedly hierarchical. The natural association in people's minds, when hearing the term "taxonomy," will be to think

4213:

The term "taxonomy" has also been applied to the Framework in several places in the article. I don't think this is accurate. A taxonomy is a particular kind of classification, one where the things are aranged according to a hierarchy and where a given child entity cannot be associated with more than

4183:

Thus I would say the framework is incomplete -- although I have had Zachman proponents contend otherwise to me. They hold the position that diagrams of such relationships are "implementation diagrams", and are not part of "architecture". That is a valid position to hold, but it does mean that a tool

2754:

Conclusion -- it is essentially almost a direct copy. There is no actual business value generated by copying the shape of the icons in the rows, and in fact there would be more value in providing a text description in each cell (again, IMO) -- but if icons were to be provided it would be likely that

1855:

In general, whenever you create a presentation that you want to place in the public domain, if you have the right to do so, you may -- but if you incorporated a copyrighted image within your work -- you must delete that image from that slide. Or. Simply recreate the material in your own terms. There

1700:

And that was correct -- even though the Open Group officially told me to create a copy of the image, and expressly granted permission for Knowledge to display it, that did not constitute placing it in the public domain. And the same reasoning applies here. The fact that it was a federal employee who

1334:

Let us discuss this here on this article talk page. I have been informed by Samuel Holcman that John Zachman has not released the image into the public domain. Beyond the above reasoning, using a 2002 image for the framework in 2009 is not useful -- a wrong image is not better than no image. I think

1252:

The image that has been used in this page asserts that it is in the public domain (see . The assertion is: "This image is a work of a United States Department of Veterans Affairs employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the

1199:

Ok. It would be very nice if any diagram at the top should be the most recent version. However these diagrams are almost always copyrighted. Now there is a small margin for non-free use/fair use in Knowledge. But if there is any alternative way to illustrate the article, non-free use/fair use is not

1147:

I think it is inevitable, that articles like this can't focuss on just the latest update. I think Knowledge articles should mainly focuss on the original idea, and add any new update as a footnote in the history section. In this concept an older version of the zachman Framework can never been wrong.

1004:

of John Zachman, as well as how organisations actually use the tool, both aspects are important to an encyclopedia. It's a bit like what would happen if the founders of Scrum had a hissy fit every time someone said it was OK to change the stories part way through a timebox ... they actually say that

926:

I am an EA practitioner with extensive training and experience with working with the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. My only criticism has been related to the use of old, outdated, and incorrectly labelled images of the Zachman Framework. I think most of the other improvements made by

888:

The most active contributor to this article, over the years, has been Phogg2. Unfortunately, this individual has never elected to complete his own page on Knowledge or declare his identity. (I am only using male pronouns out of convenience. I do not know Phogg's gender). As a result, while we can

862:

P.S. I started that critisism section, with only one critique expecting the section to be expanded by others. Now I think you have given some valuable directions for more critism. And I agree that without it, the article is incomplete. I think good critisism can give the readera better understanding

4889:

Mdd,... The edits made are precisely in line with the publicly available documents for the Zachman Framework. I am happy to discuss with you. I would encourage you to review the Zachman Framework itself and note that in its title is self described as a framework for EA and services as an Ontology.

4546:

I think the confusion over the reference to the Zachman Framework as an ontology is related to its two meanings. When Zachman uses the term ontology he is using it in the context of its original meaning as a branch of metaphysics, i.e., concering questions about what entities exist and how they are

4526:

For quite some time, there has been a citation to Roger Sessions' comparison of EA frameworks used as a source for the text in the intro. Somewhere along the way, the text of the intro morphed, to the point where the text and the citation did not match. In fact, the text in the intro specifically

4348:

As noted above, the fact that the relationships are implicit and can connect anything to anything is important. This fact means that the relationships are, in fact, absent. An ontology (in information science) derives most of its value from the relationships between the concepts themselves, which

4331:

referenced sources call it a taxonomy, then wikipedia will reflect that. Currently in the first 3 paragraphs the framework is twice referred to as an ontology and once as a taxonomy so that may be the appropriate balance. (I argued that it is not a methodology at all but it is also referred to as a

4295:

We could certainly qualify the term "taxonomy", to remove the implicit association, by calling ZF a "non hierarchical taxonomy," but I doubt that this compromise adds clarity over simply calling it a "classification scheme." If we are going to remove taxonomy, and I'm OK with that, I'd prefer that

4209:

The term "classification scheme" appears several times in the article. Zachman uses the term "classification schema" in most of his writings. While "scheme" and "schema" are often used interchangeably, "schema" implies a a structure or model for some scheme or plan, i.e., something to which content

3892:

Just for the record. I am not trying just to keep the things like they are. I an not convinced about the need for those clean ups. By bringing this up, maybe unintentionaly, you made me realize that there is something very important missing in this article...!? This is the story of how to apply the

3298:

Ok, I get the picture. You propose an exclusively textual version with some optional lay out and colouring. This is fine with me. We can use this concept to create the one image for on top of the article. And I guess we could use the same image in the two explaining images (by replacing the current

3279:

It might be validly argued that all the cells should contain is "cell name" for example "Data Entity Specification". In which case in the body of the article there should be an explanation of what the cells contain, referenced to name. The fact that the current framework article does not do this is

2956:

I believe that any jury would look at the points I made about the number of identical icons within the two images (Zachman's and the VA image) and accept that one was copied from the the other. There is ZERO chance that, given two people who were explained the details of the framework, and who were

2514:

image of the concept. So not -- not everyone who creates an illustration of the Zachman Framework concept is in violation. I believe I specifically said you could create your own matrix with "who", "how", "when" etc. as columns and your own rows with "scope", "business", "application", "technology"

1834:

a "copyright encumbrance". What does that mean? It means what I said before. There is nothing wrong with the presentation as a whole. There is nothing wrong with the VA using it internally. The wrong only becomes when it is assumed they can post the whole presentation to the world as public domain.

1651:

In this matter the 11 pages presentation is clearly new work. And things like the TOGAF framework could/should be considered derived work. So your initial argument that Zachman never released the image makes no sense. He never created this new work, so he can never claim copyright. And this problem

1577:

I guess you are forgetting the one thing. If the copyright of the VA presentation was in any way owned by Zachman it should have simply be mentioned with a copyright marking. The work is never released by Zachman because it is never made by Zachman. If I am mistaken here, please ask Sam Holcman the

1166:

Yes. I agree. That's my point. It is legitimate to use and talk about older versions of something - especially when they have become widespread and generic, the originator cannot have a real claim on the sole definition any more. Moreover, the person who commented on TOGAF would have done better to

4742:

Advantages of the Zachman framework are that it is easy to understand, it addresses the or methodologies, and any issues can be mapped against it to understand where they fit. An important drawback is the large number of cells, which is an obstacle for the practical applicability of the framework.

4311:

The associations are not visible in the 6x6 matrix but I would argue that they are a part of the Framework. Here is what John Zachman says about them: "In addition to the basic entities within each Cell, there clearly is a potential relationship between all of the Cell meta entities across any one

4283:

Weighing in on this discussion (late... sorry). The use of the word 'ontology' was a compromise made over a year ago to get out of a similar long debate. I do not agree that ZF is an ontology, especially since it claims no relationships between the parts. The relationships are both implicit and

3740:

I think the problem here is that this section is called "application" but it hardly explaines about applicating the Zachman Framework. This is a source of confusion. Just moving the section doesn't solve anything here. I think renaming the section to for example "influences" does. Again a separate

3275:

Initial version is not "handsome". But -- clearly not a copy, no icons, and communicates better I think just what is expected in each of the "cells" whereas current diagrams are just pretty pictures. Note this is similar in approach to the current "1992 Framework". However a difference is that the

2470:

Simply every matrix like image in the field of Enterprise architecure has similarities with one and an other. Dozens of similar images have been created in the 1990s by in several initiatives, some of them by John Zachman. There is a series of similar matrix like images, which we nowadays call the

1785:

I had the privilege of being present for the final two weekend working sessions that produced this historic milestone document, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Enterprise Architecture Strategy. I was impressed by your vision for the Department and your sense of urgency for addressing this

1554:

just confirmed to me today that John Zachman has not so released it, and Sam works with John right now and has worked with him for years, I believe we have someone who is asserting that no such permission exists. And I suggest it is better to handle this now, informally. Because once a lawyer does

1290:

Hi, I undone your removal of the Zachman Framework image. The matter if this is a copyright or not is far form clear. The image itself is created in 2002 by the US-VA in the time that Zachman was working together with the US department. In 2002 the original Zachman Frameworks were quite different.

1101:

From comments made here, however, it would appear that this is what John Zachman and his supporters are trying to do. All past versions were valid at the time, and he has been successful enough for his technique to have become generic, like the Hoover vacuum cleaner becoming so popular that people

942:

What?? In the past months I have created several different versions based on your comments. These are all abstractions of the original Zachman Framework, which has been altered by Zachman & Co at least a dozen times since the first 1987 original. It is not as black and white as you pretend. --

4530:

Also, while John Zachman himself claims that ZF is an ontology, there is no basis for that belief in the literature of information science. He does refer to his framework, many times, as a mechanism for classification. That much is clear and not disputed. As such, I removed the word "ontology"

4247:

I didn't mean cells in lower parts of the framework being children of upper level cells. That would really be against the logic of the Framework as all cells are meant to be independent and mutually exclusive (like the entries in the Periodic Table of Elements). An example of a child entity being

2859:

This doesn't mean the "simple example of the VA Zachman Framework" can still be considered a copyright violation. I have argued from the beginning that "the matter if this is a copyright or not is far from clear". In order to determine whether or not there is copyright violation you should make a

2689:

So did the VA copy any image created by Zachman International? I don't think so. Or at least I am not aware of any original by John Zachman that is an exact original of the VA Zachman Framework. It does have some similarities with the 2001 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. But the VA

2456:

In other words, every one who creates an illustration of the Zachman Framework concept, is in violation. Zachman Internation is the one authority in the world allowed to create those illustrations. The many dozens of scientists and organization, who have creates similar images or who incorporated

1946:

The previous ongoing discussion makes me wonder if there is a Zachman Affair here initited by Zachman International to control this Knowledge article. There are some very peculiar thing going on here for the third year in a row now. I would be nice to get a more clear view on this matter. What is

1682:

of the ZF. Which is a violation of copyright. Zachman doesn't own the concept. But he does own the image of the concept. You, for example, are not permitted to create your own copy of the TOGAF ADM. That is where I ran aground. (Again, see TOGAF discussion page.) Because I even got permission, in

1338:

To the point about the VA presentation -- it is perfectly legal and legitimate for an agency to contract with Zachman, and as part of his delivered work, include an image of his framework in their internal materials. It does not then suddenly however become a public domain image. The concept that

824:

In some ways, ZF is a moot discussion. It is simple and well referenced, albeit ever-changing. It is so general that it is difficult to pin it down and criticize it as being anything except too comprehensive. Yet, most would agree that the framework, by itself, doesn't solve any actual problems

4179:

These relationships are documented as metadata for an entity, so in the server metadata might appear (IT owner, business owner) and location (data center/room/rack/rack location). This metadata does not occur in the framework. It does not occur in any cell of the framework. However relationships

3997:

I rephrased the sentence "The Zachman framework is an ontology not a methodology", to "The Zachman framework is more of an ontology than a methodology". I oppose this exact definition, whichn't the general opinion in the field. We don't let companies or scientists dictate Knowledge articles like

3734:

I would like you to give me some time to respond, because I am not convinced (yet), especially about moving the application section. No matter what, this section is related to Zachman Framework. Moving this section, I think, doesn't solve the problem why this section should be moved in the first

3325:

I am leaning though to just having "cell name" in the cell. Rather as you did with the 1992 image. (BTW -- my positive comment about the 1992 image referred to how it looked -- nice, clean, good cell bevelling. My unpositive comment was only referring to the fact that it is way many years out of

2806:

Again I agree with your line of approach here of making a comparisment between the 2001 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture, and the VA Zachman Framework image. I however disagree with the way you actually compare the two frameworks, and your conclusion... Because you only compared one

904:

Three months ago Phogg2's role changed from the most active contributor to the most active critic of this article, especially insisting to remove the new illustrations. I think I removed most of Phogg2's contributions to the article, which where mostly sections from recent primairy sources, text

4069:

As for the 3rd change -- yes perhaps it need not be in the intro. However I think it is important to provide information as to why we have a 5 row framework rather than a 6 row framework. As Zachman himself admits, only the first 5 rows are used for enterprise architecture. And the framework in

4591:

Nick, I'll have a look at the blog that you have started and see if there is anything I may be able to contribute. As to which meaning of ontology applies, I would just like to point out that the Zachman Framework, what John Zachman calls the "normative" one, is a framework for classifying the

3963:

I am not so sure. I've tried to find reasonable sources that explain how to use the ZF as part of a methodology. While there may be some general descriptions included in commercial web pages, there have been no quotable references that I have found so far. Remember that ZIFA is a commercial

3229:

This is ok with me. However if possible, I like to finish this item first as much as possible, and then look at your other suggestions. My main concern here is to get good illustrations of the Zachman Framework, and I welcome any further initiative here. Now in the previous discussion with the

4148:

has developed his DEMO modelling language into what he calles an "enterprise ontlogy". But here again I am not that sure this could be considered an ontology in the common sense? From what I understand so far ontologies in the field of computer/information sciences are methods for semanically

3871:

You also state: "The Zachman Framework is not a methodology. Never has been". I am not claiming it is. But as far a I know it has been used, and is still being used as a base for enterprise architecture. And quite often, some investigations tell us. This is an other thing, this article should

1793:

The evidence of this complete business-technology collaboration was manifest in the Team's presentation to you during the final session … with Laura Miller, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health defining Enterprise Architecture and why it is so important, Guy McMichael, Acting Assistant

809:

I contributed to this article well over a year ago. At that time, the article was not as well written as it is today (credit, I believe, goes to Mdd for the excellent updates). However, the article at that time had something that the current article does not: a section for airing the widely

4263:

OK. I see what you are saying. But then those associations are in fact not part of the framework, so you cannot use them to argue that the framework cannot be considered a taxonomy. Thus, a relationship between a process, a material item, a role, and a location are valid inferences from the

1801:

This document is insightful, coherent, comprehensive, and innovative --- a tribute to the clarity of vision and understanding that only can result from intense communication. I must also mention the gifted facilitation by a group of dedicated folks led by Professor Leon Kappelman that truly

2357:

Marcel -- do not accuse me of "sock puppetry". If you took the one minute to go to my user page and read it and see how long I have posted to Knowledge you would not assert that I may be the same person as Phogg2. I am not. I do not know who that person is. Nor have I been asked by Zachman

3317:

Yes. Copyright encumbrance comes from an image that is too similar to extant copyrighted image. Whereas a matrix with just text obviously cannot be a copy because (as far as I know) all Zachman images contain the cell icons...you can see the progression and change over the years but it is

3637:

Ok, tahnks. I added the new image on top, and integrated the text in the cell description section. If you like you could create a "Matrix Description" instead. But then you should write an introduction and and ending as well. Or you could just improve the current state some more..!? --

4949:

As I understand it, the official full title of the latest edition of the Zachman Framework, is "Zachman Framework for EA: The Enterprise Ontology." This is a fact, that the article could and should acknowledge. But this doesn't mean, that the lead sentence of this article should be

3741:

article about the VA Enterprise Architecture could contain and explain more about the last example here. And an extra text which explains about just applying the Zachman Framework (in your own company). These are next steps taht make sense to me. Just moving shit around doesn't.--

2899:: The 2001 Zachman Framework is sort of a rich diagram, with lots of details, but the VA Zachman Framework is sort of a icon. They almost seem the opposite. The 2001 Zachman Framework gives a maximum of possible information. The VA Zachman Framework gives a minimum of information. 3333:

If so I will take a stab at a matrix. I will then produce the associated text. If you like it then I would ask you to take your much superior skill with graphics to make the resulting matrix look as nice as the one you did for the 1992 image. How does this approach strike you?

2246:

after Phogg2 seems the second independend advisor, which is asked by Zachman International to settle their alleged copyright issues. Or maybe or probably they are just one an the same person. One thing: If Phogg2 and SunSw0rd are two and the same persons there could be also a

4474:(2) We have serious problems referring to ZF as an ontology. We could qualify the term "ontology" as an "unrelated ontological model" but that qualification would render the term effectively meaningless. It is time to consistently refer to ZF as a classification scheme. -- 696:

Now I wonder if the current title should or shouldn't be renamed from "Zachman framework" or "Zachman Framework". It seems to me it should because the term "Zachman Framework" relates to one particular framework. But I am not sure. Who could help, by giving their opinion? --

2913:

So if you look at the image as a whole, there are a lot of differences to determine. Also if you look at the details of the images there are also lot's of differences. Again I agree there are similarities between most icons used, but these icons are just a part of the whole

1614:

Interesting. Can you point me to the Knowledge text asserting Knowledge has the right to use images created by federal employees? Because that seems to me to be a pretty large loophole permitting any trademarked and/or copyrighted image to be placed into the public domain.

3329:

If we do that then I think we should have a separate table in the body of the article that explains what each row/column cell intersection means. This has the advantage that other enterprise architects will be likely to come along and add commentary in that area. Sound

2541:

you would violate trademark. But if you use the same column headers and same row headers to create your own image you are fine. You could even use your own words to describe the cell intersections -- still fine. Because you are describing pictorially the concept of the

1542:

page. Please go to the TOGAF discussion page and read the debate. Unless they have formally released that image into the public domain (and I don't know if they have or not, but at the time they had not) then that image is also a violation of Knowledge image permission

3133:. I don't know/understand what you want to propose. Which part of the current article do you want to move were? And why? I was under the impression, that we are talking about if the VA image is a copyvio or not. Moving whole parts comes out of the blue for me here...!? 2606:

Thanks again for explaining. I think I agree with your point of view here. I came to the same conclusion from a historical perspective. John Zachman first proposed the concept, and he (and Zachman International) created a series of images that represent the idea, see

1339:

just because a federal employee incorporates copyrighted work, even if under permission for them to use internally, suddenly means the work is public domain simply because they are a federal employee incorporating the material in a federal document, is invalid.

3371:". This means that if the new images is extracted solely from the original, then it is to be considered derived work, which is a copyvio. That is why, as I stated before, it is important to know if multiple originals are used or not to create the new image...!? 1460:

These images are all based on the ideas of Zachman, but as far as I know he never released either of them. He created an idea in a matrix shape, which has inspired lot's of other people. But Zachman doesn't keep all the copyright here of this new developments.

2749:(5) Compare icons in the VA framework in the row labeled "Contextual" -- compare to the icons in the Zachman framework in the row "Scope (Contextual). Again, 5 of 6 icons are identical, however this time the exception is the 3rd icon in the Zachman framework. 4163:

An ontology might be more simply defined as: "an explicit specification of a conceptualization", or "a description of the concepts and relationships of a collection of entities". Knowledge has two references, I think we are referencing the wrong one. One is

2881:: I think the 2001 original is not the only image used to create the VA image. If you look at the cell 2,2 (row 2, column 2). This VA icon is different then the (2,2) icon in the 2001 Zachman original, but similar to the (2,2) icon in the 1992 framework. 3857:

The TEAF and "One-VA Enterprise Architecture" are what you call "Zachman Framework influenced framework". It still seems to me this article is the first place to explain about these infuences. Moving this story to the EAF article makes no sense to

3230:

mysterious Phogg2 I created all illustration, and he kept making new requests. Drawing any new image is no problem for me, but I would appreciate if you would take the lead here. Could you draw and upload your idea of an "acceptable use image"? --

4290:

of a hierarchical scheme. That implicit association would not directly apply to ZF. On the other hand, "ontology" is a word drawn from philosophy that is much further from ZF than the word "taxonomy" is, because it refers to the nature of being.

2770:". Anyone who wants to see the images can go look. In addition, there is no problem I think in creating a current matrix image, applying the row and column headers, and providing a text meaning of each cell. That would violate no image copyright. 1811:

Now eight years later Zachman Internation seems to pretend there was some anomonous federal government employee who created a VA presentation for internal use, which is all along just a copyright violantion. Please correct me if I am wrong...!?

3376:

I can (re)draw the resulting matrix, but it would be nice if you supply me with the exact texts, so I don't have to type them all over. (You can just copy paste them here or on my talkpage, and then I can import them into my drawing program. --

813:

With the consent of the community, I'd like to add back in a section that discusses the acknowledged limitations of ZF along with the published criticisms, (including the choice of interrogatives reflecting a bias towards the English Language

165: 3691:

Some of the reference go to sites that require log in (like right now #13). Or to references that make no sense whatsoever (like right now #2, which is in support of asserting that "...Framework is in essence a matrix" leads to an article on

1865:

In general too many people "copy/paste" images that they get via email or from the web into their internal presentations. The source of the image is then forgotten. This is a general problem. And yes it can take years before someone notices.

2775:

And of course, any image which might be "Zachman framework concept applied to TOGAF" or something like that would obviously not be a violation. Of course it wouldn't be the Zachman framework either and as such would be better applied to the

1360:

The VA federal employee who first presented this work was Al Zuech, Director, Enterprise Architecture Service at the US Department of Veterans Affairs on 15 February 2002. His team created this presentation under supervision of John Zachman

2392:

Again there is the line of argumentation, that the presentation so called was made by an anomynous government empoyee, who didn't know what he was doing. However, there has been a considerable amount of effort by the US VA resulting in the

2358:

International to "settle their alleged copyright issues" as you phrase it. While I have had personal conversation with Sam Holcman I have not talked to John Zachman, nor have I been contracted, paid, or otherwise incented to deal with this.

1400:

P.S. The main argument seems to be that Zachman never released the image. Now in the article I have allready explained that Zachman Framework have been a base for noumerous other enterprise architecture frameworks, some of more important:

4392:

is saying it is, either. He stated and I quote "I oppose this exact definition, whichn't the general opinion in the field". He is saying there is a general opinion. He is not saying that the general opinion is correct but that it exists.

1128:

I am not sure I understand your last remark. Your comments here are much appreciated. In Knowledge I am experiencing a similar problem. User:Phogg2 tries to stop me from using an older and applied version of the framework, claiming it is

4616:

After looking into this matter some more, I have changed my mind somewhat and now think that "ontology" as used in information science does in fact apply to the Zachman Framework. I'll post my reasoning on Nick's blog in a little while.

4460:

There is some agreement here. (1) ZF is not a methodology. Let's say so, explitely. Saying that it is more of an ontology than a methodology is misleading because it implies that it could have methodology associated with it. ZF does

4117:

provide a methodology (the Architecture Development Method or ADM). So it true that it is "more of" an ontology than a methodology (because something is more than zero). But I also agree with your point so I remain okay with the change.

1794:

Secretary for Information Technology discussing the long term political and business ramifications, and Ventris Gibson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Management describing the framework. I never thought I'd see the day!!

2746:(4) Compare icons in the VA framework in the row labeled "Conceptual" -- compare to the icons in the Zachman framework in the row Business Model (Conceptual). Again, 5 of 6 icons are identical, again the exception is the 2nd in the row. 1367:

Every company knows that if I US federal departement creates new graphical work based on their ideas that work is in the public domain. There is no "then suddenly however become a public domain image" argument. It is all clear from the

818:) and the need, by at least one prominent author, to completely replace the rows entirely in order to make the ZF applicable to a methodology for developing and using Enterprise Architecture within a software development lifecycle. 1807:

The letter clearly states there was a whole team of people under the guidance of Professor Leon Kappelman, which developed the concept of the new VA Enterprise architecture, which principles are explained in the VA presentation.

777:, (i.e. capitalised when used as a proper noun, sentence style when referring to phenomena or general terms). Of course many articles on Knowledge break this, favouring Title case capitalisation, but this is explained best by the 1923:

I admit it is more complicated with the use of elements of this presentation. I can explain more... but before that I think you allready don´t agree with my point of view here. So I think it is important to clear this first. --

785:

The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where implied by normal capitalization rules ('Funding of UNESCO projects', not 'Funding of UNESCO

1771: 2743:(3) Look at the icons in the VA framework in the row labeled "Logical" -- compare to the icons in the Zachman framework in the row "System Model (Logical)". Icons 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 all match -- the exception is only icon 2. 3048:

You can't dismis all arguments I just given as incompetent and irrelevant to the case. I was talking about the VA Framework image as a whole. Furthermore: That whole image can be seen as a constructing of multiple elements:

2760:

So IMO -- essentially a copy/paste job with a couple of minor modifications. Or an actual copy paste job since the Zachman version from the Zachman site which is 2001 might not be the exact same one Zachman presented to the

3318:

characteristic. Yet the little icons don't really communicate much value to an enterprise architect who is interested in using the framework. They will want to know -- what the heck does the intersection of column and row

4149:

classifying large scale phenomenon in a certain area. The ZF could maybe fit this description, but it seems to me it offers only a very limited and rigid classification of just 36 classes...!? But again I am not sure. --

1316:

It is clear that the second image is the original Zachman Framework. But the presentation as a whole is an original work based on the Zachman Framework. And the image presented here, was part of this new presentation. --

4829:

The argument for (re)adding the (see page history) "Framework it self is an Ontology as described on the front of the current version 3.0." doesn't hold because Knowledge articles should be build on reliable third party

676: 4264:

framework, and will appear in architectural artifacts. But they don't actually exist in the framework itself because, as you identified, all cells are independent, and no cell within itself has those relationships.

2536:

image that was posted. In addition, since he has trademarked the image framework in addition to copyrighting individual images that he created, if you were to simply create, by hand, an exact copy of an image like

1600:

is still available online. If there is any copyright issue here, it is between Zachman Internation and the US VA department, and not with us. We have got the right to use images created by US federal employees.

2948:

Regarding your points about intention of images, and the number of different versions of the images -- all are pertinent to the framework but not a discussion of image copyright encumbrance. Let us be clear on

2952:

I am not talking about the framework (concept) about which there are multiple images and multiple versions of images as the concept changed over time. I am discussing one and one point only -- image copyright

2755:

they would be standard Visio stencil shapes or else standard stencil shapes from some other tool -- but the odds of them being so congruent to the icons generated by John Zachman by accident are close to zero.

1856:

would (IMO) be nothing wrong with creating a matrix with the who, what, when etc. on top and horizontal layers labelled scope, business, system etc. Fill in the intersections with your own text or images. The

1364:

The whole presentation of 11 sheets can't be just be stamped as derived work from one matrix diagram. There are several new ideas in the whole presentation, and a whole different lay out then just one diagram.

2893:: The intention of both images are different. The original 2001 Zachman Framework is a presentation of the concept. The one VA Zachman Framework copy is kind of meant to clearify the essential principles...!? 1835:

That is not the case. The single slide that contains the copyright encumbered image should be deleted or replaced before release to the public domain. Do you understand now? To make crystal clear (again IMO):

1379:

is still available online. If there is a copyright issue here, it is between Zachman Internation and the US VA department, and not with us. We have got the right to us images created by US federal employees.

3827:

Sorry. I guess I don't understand. Your reason to move the application section seems to be... because the EAF article is a lot shorter...!? You have to do a lot better then that. I have been improving EAF,

3718:

I will give all a bit of time to read these suggestions, then I will take a stab at implementing them tomorrow. I won't do them all at once. I will do them a bit at a time to enable review and discussion.

3393:

P.S. I don't agree that the icons are meaningless. There are icons for: a listing, an entity-resource diagram, an functional diagram, a hierarchical diagram etc... But I agree to leave them out of it (for

2659: 4231:

Can you give an example of a child entity (I presume you mean a cell lower in the framework) that can be associated with multiple parents? Or are you not referring to a cell when you say "child entity"?

4433:

I keep opposing to calling the Zachman Framework an ontology, because in computer and information science in general the term ontology has an other meaning and other kinds of visual representation, see

2382:

Ok, thanks for making this clear. There is however the burden of the three years of Zachman International involvement here. And I am actually still surprised you are exactly using the same arguments as

1652:

is not new. The VA presentation is online available for more then seven years now. But when Knowledge started using this image, they started attacking us. It seems to me you are at the wrong adress. --

1036:

by John Zachman, or Zachman international. They did seem to register terms like: "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture", "The Zachman Framework: a Concise Definition", "The Zachman Framework™"

3964:

organization, as is the step-child (Pinnacle) that runs the EACOE web site. These are not impartial sources. They are referring to their for-profit methods, that require their internal resources. --

3401:

Regarding the table -- no not like one in the 2007 version of the article. Again I used imprecise language. Rather something textual in the body of the article rather like below, and image changed as:

2740:(2) Look at the icons in the VA framework in the row labeled "Physical" -- compare to the icons in the Zachman framework in the row "Technology Model (Physical)". All six appear to be exact matches. 4267:

It is for this reason that I said previously: "It is also true that cross domain relationships exist but they are not expressed in the framework...Thus I would say the framework is incomplete..."

1802:

demonstrated the determination and perseverance of mountaineers on expedition. Finally, I was impressed with the stamina and commitment of the entire VA Enterprise Architecture Innovation Team...

3893:

Zachman Framework in an organization, what to do, and what to expect? This is a story I would very much like to be added to this article... I wonder if I made myself clear on this point...!? --

2214: 4172:

where it is defined as: "a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts". From that definition, the Zachman framework is an ontology.

1683:

writing, from the Open Group to create my own copy of the image and release that image to Knowledge -- and it was reverted because that permission did not place the image in the public domain.

3113:

My main argumentation is: The images as a whole is already different in many ways; the image is based on several originals, and three out of four elements of the image are clearly different.

2226: 3029:

It absolutely does matter, that there is not one original that is copied, but that there are several originals which are taking into consideration to create the image, we are talking about.

2966:(a) Remove any images pertaining to Zachman that are copies. You may chose to create an image, by hand, or I can; that will not be in violation of copyright encumbrance. Will be easy to do. 2559:

The error is when someone attends a workshop with Zachman, receives a softcopy of an image provided by Zachman, copy/pastes the provided image into a presentation, and posts it to the Web.

4565:

rather than litter a "talk" page with rationale for why I think that the ZF is not an ontology, I created a blog entry to discuss the distinction and make references to source material.

2312:

Because of all these developments the Zachman Framework has become a common chart in the field of enterprise architecture and enterprise modelling; as common as a bar chart for economics.

3617:

1st, put the new image you have created in place of the current image in the first section. You might have the text underneath say something like "Current view of the Zachman Framework".

1375:

is informed by Samuel Holcman. Last time Phogg2 was informed by John Zachman himself. Can't the Zachman Internation legal departement file a formal complain themselves...?? However. The

1718:

And finally -- regardless as to whether the VA version of the image was posted years ago -- does not mean that because of the passage of time it is okay. Copyright extends for decades.

3482:(When) Event Diagram – identifies and describes events related to each other in sequence, cycles occur within and between events, without regard to physical or technical implementation 4327:

Right you are. So in those implicit relationships the framework is not a taxonomy (hierarchical) but a network. Remember however that wikipedia is based on referenced sources. And if

4214:

one parent entity. That definitely does not apply to the logic of the Zachman Framework classification. I recommend removing all references to the Zachman Framework being a taxonomy.

4569:

For this context, suffice it to say that the use of "ontology" in information science must apply, since ZF is a framework for a related field, and not a framework for metaphysics.--

3479:(Where) Locations Diagram – identifies and describes locations used to access, manipulate, and transfer entities and processes without regard to physical or technical implementation 2232: 1555:

become involved, Knowledge cannot absolve itself by removing the image then. It will be too late. The image does not meet the Knowledge content criteria and it is as simple as that.

4001:

I removed the sentence: "While the enterprise is comprised of Rows 1-6, enterprise architecture is comprised only of Rows 1-5 and this is shown in the image to the right.(source :

3763:(EAF) article is a lot shorter than this article and covers all EA Frameworks (of which Zachman is one). It may be that not all material under "Application" should be moved. But. 3476:(Who) Role Relationship Diagram – identifies and describes roles and their relations to other roles by types of deliverables without regard to physical or technical implementation 958: 2945:

You are right about looking at the framework as a whole, etc. But we are not discussing the framework -- at least, I am not. I am discussing a particular image of that framework.

2860:

fair comparisment between the two illustrations... not just on some details, but on all important details, the whole, and the intention of image, the original or originals...!?

905:

directly from the current Zachman International website. I replaced most if not all of those contributions, mostly with secondary sources, according to Knowledge policies, see

689: 4743:

Also, the relations between the different cells are not that well specified. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, Zachman is to be credited with providing the first comprehensive

1908:(3) The presentation is not derived but is a new development by the US VA team after a consideral amount of development as the 2001 letter by John Zachman already indicates 706: 1538:* Regarding the TOGAF image. I myself contacted TOGAF and received permission to release it to Knowledge. That image was removed and the debate regarding it exists on the 189: 5049: 4210:

is added. This being the case, I think the Zachman Framework is better described as a schema rather than a scheme, and so I recommend editing the article accordingly.

1914:(5) The US VA work is made published online since 2002 and still is without any reference that the whole presentation is in anyway copyright by Zachman international. 117: 3688:

Some of the language is confusing and inhibits understanding. For example, referring to a column as a "focus" (what's that?) or a "product abstraction" (even worse).

4659: 1824: 602:

The EACOE Enterprise Framework was developed by Sam Holcman, who co-founded the (now disestablished) Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement with John Zachman.

2690:

zachman Framework is not a copy paste of the 2000 ZF for EA....!? I do know that the US VA department has initiated a whole program in 2001/02 to establish an EA:

1026: 329: 3620:

2nd, add the above row/column explanation that I provided in a new section called "Matrix Description" -- new section to follow "Overview" and precede "History".

3212: 1478: 1268: 3498:(What) Data Entity Specification – expressed in a technology specific format; each entity is defined by name, description, and attributes; shows relationships 2402:

There is a continuing story of deception here. People hide behind anomynous usernames, sock puppetry has been used, which doesn't make it all any clearer. --

2259:

Zachman seems to pretend to own the copyright on (all) Zachman Frameworks claiming (both the concept and) every kind of representation. They seems to pretend

5039: 4823: 4819: 111: 4388:. See at the very top of this section where I stated "The Zachman framework is an ontology not a methodology" and gave the reference. I don't say that user 3467:(Why) Rules Diagram – identifies and describes rules that apply constraints to processes and entities without regard to physical or technical implementation 3150:

Now I am starting to agree, that using the VA image on top of the article could be considered confusing. Readding that image might be not such a good idea.

4048:

An alternative for this second point could maybe be something "The Zachman framework is presented by Zachman as an ontology and not a methodology"...!? --

3239: 2710: 592: 246: 184: 3470:(How) Process Diagram – identifies and describes process transitions expressed as verb-noun phrases without regard to physical or technical implementation 2672:

I think we need to get a good look at the details to determine whether the simplyfied illustration of the VA enterprise is a copyright violation or not.

2008: 1382:

The argument that a 2002 illustration doesn't fit a 2009 article is shear nonsense. We are not here to sell the latest products of Zachman International.

1306:

There has been a long discussion here about whether or not this is derived work or not. Now the US VA team made the following presentation in 2001-02:

1291:

Now I have had a long discussion about this with someone close to Zachmanm see the talkpage. If you have any new information here please let me know. --

1046:, which gives an overview of the evolution of the Zachman Frameworks by Zachman and others. I think a reference to this new article should be added here. 3623:

That should do it. So do you want to make the change or do you want me to make the change? Or do you want to add the image and have me add the section?

2315:

Now what seems a next chapter in the Zachman Affair, Zachman Internation continues to claiming copyright on an illustration, which is part of so called

3714:

beginning with the sentence: "In the 1997 Zachman Framework the rows are..." including the diagram would, IMO, be best moved up to the history section.

1860:

of the framework is not trademarked or copyrighted. It is merely the specific provided image that Zachman himself generated. Do you see the difference?

4384:

is not a methodology (from my perspective). It is not like TOGAF which has both a framework and a methodology. But you will have to take this up with

996:, as authorised and validated by Zachman International, with a validly referenced statement/diagram of what it was like at each stage in its evolution 5064: 5012: 2361:

In addition I disagree with your assertions. I have been arguing about the specific use of a specific image -- not the other stuff you are asserting.

2057: 863:

about the possible of the framework. I do think all this critisism should be build on reliable sources, and or reliable authors like Graeme Simsion.

683: 617: 510: 840:

Hi Nick, thanks for your feed back. First of all, I rewrote this article with a critism chapter, but this has just been removed a few days ago, see

492: 1959: 1748:

What do you want to say...?? The whole 11 page presentation is a copyright violation of the one image? Is that what you are trying to tell me? --

1119: 2220: 2155: 1850:(e) The presentation, without the copyrighted image, may be made public domain by the VA -- that is, all of THEIR work may be made public domain. 5044: 5034: 4084:

I think that one sentence definitely needs the kind of explaination you are giving here, maybe even a (short) subsection. We could call it the

2737:(1) Look at all the icons in the VA framework in row "As Built" -- compare to icons in Zachman framework in the row "Detailed Representations". 866:

It would be good to include criticism in the article, but with reliable sources. Notable criticism would surely have been published somewhere.

3495:(How) Process Function Specification – expressed in a technology specific language, hierarchical process elements are related by process calls 1200:

accepted. This is why the alternative illustration is currently on top now. The only thing we can do here is give the image a good caption--

3473:(What) Data Model Diagram – identifies and describes entities and their relationships without regard to physical or technical implementation 1501:

For me, this is a rather clear case of derived work. But if you take a matrix and create 11 pages presentation it is far from clear...!? --

4720:

In 1984, John Zachman, while at IBM, developed the first IT architecture framework, which he continued to develop into the most recognized

4180:

between entities is documented, as are relationships between processes, or people; but these all occur within a single cell (respectively).

2324: 2320: 1335:

we would better served to see if we can get a current image released to the public domain -- but if not successful better to have no image.

657: 2484:

I think, the greatest deception of all here is the claim that John Zachman or Zachman Internations owns the one image of the concept. --

875: 87: 4937:

This is precisely the problem. This article should not be inline with the latest available documents by the Zachman/FEAC Institute: As

4566: 3841: 2296: 1539: 1235: 1209: 1186: 1157: 1064: 796: 291: 2887:: There is also not just one VA Zachman Framework copy. In the whole 2001/02 VA presentation, there is a series of 8 different images. 2701:

I still assume, that the creation of the whole Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework was just a part of this development. --

743: 4626: 4601: 4578: 4556: 4358: 4305: 3492:(Why) Rules Specification – expressed in a formal language; consists of rule name and structured logic to specify and test rule state 3194:* Let us break this into two pieces and handle them separately. One is image copyright encumbrance. The other is article improvement. 2025: 1905:(2) It is based on the concept of the Zachnman Framework and the given 2001 version of the Zachman Framework by Zachman International 4402: 4341: 4276: 4241: 3844:... and some more. There is definitely a relation between the ZF and these other frameworks, which is explained in reliable sources. 2817: 2636:

Now I start to agree with you... that we need to get a real good look at the detail if we want to resolve our disagreement here. --

611: 5059: 3501:(Who) Role Specification – expresses roles performing work and workflow components at the work product detailed specification level 2532:

So no one (at least I am not) is claiming that Zachman owns "the one image of the concept". What I am claiming is that he owns the

482: 4509: 4483: 3973: 3451:(Who) Organizational Unit & Role Relationship Model – identifies enterprise roles and units and the relationships between them 2844:

Is simply not true: The VA image we are talking about here, is simply no copy/paste of the whole 2001 original image, as pictured

2302:

And Zachman Internation themselves have at least developed a dozen different kinds of illustrations of the Zachman Framework, see

920: 855: 4447: 4193: 4158: 4127: 4097: 4079: 3946: 3937:

It is no original research if you use and relate to article written about this, and I can't image those article do not exist. --

3924: 3902: 3881: 3814: 3766:

The Customization sub-section, which describes Zachman as applied to other frameworks, might logically be under the more general

3750: 3661: 3647: 3632: 3567: 3386: 3343: 3308: 3170: 2985: 2957:

even given the column and row names, would come up with such a match with all the icons in the intersections of rows and columns.

2932: 2797: 2731:. Now look at the shapes of the icons in the intersecting cells, and compare them to the shapes of the icons in the VA framework. 2645: 2585: 2411: 2373: 2074: 1933: 1875: 1757: 1727: 1661: 1567: 1407: 1348: 1300: 4702:

The Zachman enterprise architecture framework, established in the late 1980s, continues to be the dominant EA standard today...

4540: 4003: 3246: 2767: 2720: 3684:

I would like to spend a bit of time cleaning up the article now. There are several problems that I see. I will enumerate some.

2869:

Now for example you can start by looking at the framework as a whole, it's intention, it's appearance, it's background... etc:

1976: 1177:

opinion) - and the copyright holder for something is not necessarily the best source to get a fully rounded view on something.

952: 898: 721: 265: 130: 78: 58: 4858:

How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or choosing an enterprise architecture framework,

5069: 2172: 1135: 354: 4995: 4963: 4928: 4873: 4057: 3593: 3352:

With a separate table in the body of the article, do you mean a table like the one in the 2007 version of this article, see

3264: 2780:

page. I suggest further that a whole lot of the stuff currently on the Zachman Framework page might be better suited to the

2766:

I have the following suggestion. Simply remove any images that appear to be copies, and merely provide a reference link to "

2493: 1701:

did so -- and BTW who did not get express permission from Zachman to do so -- does not place the image in the public domain.

1624: 1283: 936: 1597: 1376: 4768:

The Zachman framework is a two-dimensional model that uses six basic communication interrogatives (What, How, ... Another

4662:." Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering. Springer Netherlands, 2007. 375-380. 4365:

we know to be in error? I'm concerned for people who trust Knowledge when they are trying to learn about the Framework.

2123: 237: 4521: 3837: 2686:

I guess one question here is to determine, what was the matter with the development of the VA enterprise architecture?

2019: 1777: 1591: 1510: 1395: 1326: 596: 3153:

For a start I did allready begin in Wikicommons to put the VA images in a separate directory. Did you allready notice?

2875:: There is not just one 2001 original. There are also the 1987 version, and the 1992 version, the 1993 version... etc. 1434: 5054: 4906: 4769: 4744: 4721: 4678: 4652: 4642: 3793: 3785: 3767: 3760: 3735:

place. If I am not mistaken you do say a word about why this should happen..!? We are not moving things just because.

3704: 2970: 2781: 2777: 2273:

Noumerous kinds of presentations have been made of the Zachman Framework since it's first presentation in the 1980s..

883: 468: 218: 3728: 3200:* Related to the article improvement please create a new talk section and we (and others) can discuss it separately. 980:

A tool/checklist for enterprise architecture, derived originally from any one of a number of historical versions of

778: 712:

I agree with you, Marcel. "Zachman Framework" is a proper noun, like "Atlantic Ocean" and "Los Angeles Airport." --

2068: 1954: 1780:

of John Zachman to the Department of Veterans Affairs, gives an inside of the developement of the VA EA. He wrote:

1468:

principle from 1995 is based on the DoD Standards-Based Architecture Planning Process developed in the early 1990s

1446: 846:. I have no problem, if you restore the separate critism chapter. I will comment on your further concerns soon. -- 624: 554: 550: 86:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4983: 4807: 3353: 3292: 2351: 1951:

There has been an ongoing effort 2007/2008 by Zachman International to directly edited/spammed this article with:

1102:

refer to all vacuum cleaners as hoovers (with a lowercase 'h'), hence my point about making a distinction between

906: 841: 834: 3833: 3693: 1970: 1247: 310: 3448:(What) Entity Relationship Model – identifies and describes the organizational materials and their relationships 3276:

1992 framework example is IT centric -- whereas enterprise architecture should be from the overall perspective.

4435: 4169: 4137: 4132:

Ok thanks. It is not so much that I oppose to calling the ZF "not a methodology". I oppose to calling te ZF an

3912: 2166: 1605: 1532: 1464:

And there is more A lot of the ideas in Enterprise Architecture are depending on one an other. For example the

671: 5020: 3255:. Then there is no need any more to delete those images, if they are only used to represent the VA EA...!? -- 4943:

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...

4846: 435: 393: 2049: 3759:

If I understand your concern, it relates to item 3 of the 4 items I named. Okay. Here is my reasoning. The

3426:(Who) Organizational Unit & Role List – list of all organization units, sub-units, and identified roles 2117: 662:

I updated the article. Again this is just a restart. I think it still can use more work here and there. --

275: 156: 33: 2098: 2037: 2000: 681:

At the moment we are discussing the capitalisation of terms in the field of enterprise architecture, see

583:

Does anyone have any historical information about the relationship between the Zachman Framework and the

285: 199: 4374: 4321: 4257: 4225: 2608: 2303: 2196: 2086: 1075:

to explain about the ongoing effort of Zachman International to maintain one standard Zachman Framework.

1043: 3504:(Where) Location Specification – expresses the physical infrastructure components and their connections 3156:

What more would you like me to do? I can alter or remove those icons you mentioned in the VA Framework.

2338:

there seems to be a keep it simple policy with the ZF&Co. "We created the image and we keep it...!?

2043: 1988: 1941: 819: 766: 578: 320: 4796: 4184:

used for enterprise architecture must be able to handle diagrams that exist outside of the framework.

2184: 2147: 1082:

Having a current standard is fine, it's only a problem if they try to stop you using an older version.

4691:." Enterprise Architecture, Integration and Interoperability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 56-65 4655:. Among various proposed frameworks, the Zachman Framework (ZF) is one of the most prominent ways of 4042: 1134:

There seem to be a larger problem here, how to represent AE frameworks which keep developing? In the

347: 5008:"Rule 7 The logic is recursive : The logic is relational between two instances of the same entity." 4029:). This should be explained much better. And I doubt this is that important to mention in the intro. 3507:(When) Event Specification – expresses transformations of event states of interest to the enterprise 2846: 2724: 2682:

B. They are not allowed to copy a image created by Zachman International after attending a workshop.

2135: 1419: 2679:

A. Persons (and organizations) are allowed to make there own visualization of the Zachman Framework

2316: 2092: 2031: 1309: 1231: 1182: 1115: 1022: 792: 2785: 4651:... Such an overview can not be organized regardless of incorporating a logical structure called 3679: 3429:(Where) Geographical Locations List – locations important to organization; can be large and small 2693: 2248: 1994: 1638:

then there are the normal copyright regulations: It is either derived work, or original new work.

731: 21: 1140:"This page, relating mostly to TOGAF 8, a little out of date now that TOGAF 9 has been released" 4641:

Quotes from notable third party sources, that explicitly describe the Zachman Framework as an

4105:

I have been thinking about the 2nd change. Technically, the Zachman framework is in fact not a

3055:: it's shape; it's lay out; single or double row; line thickness, colour of the rows an columns 2832:...the image is simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman. 2190: 2080: 2013: 1678:

I don't think so. You say the 11 page presentation is new work. Fine. But they incorporate the

963:

Perhaps we can resolve some of this ongoing saga by better highlighting the difference between

773: 427: 4102:

I like your concept. Nice "tag" also -- the "6th row". When I get some time I will work it in.

2611:. There are at least a dozen different images with slightly different names, none of them is " 4902: 4883: 4801: 4140:

article here... and I am not so sure the ZF fits the description of an ontology. A professor

3614:

This looks very very good. You do nice work. Okay, let's go with this. My suggestion is this.

3555:

See above for what I was thinking about showing in text. Then the diagram matrix simplifies.

3270: 2215:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#Help with Zachman Framework-related links?

1982: 687:

and we are reviewing articles titles in and around the field of enterprise architecture, see

501: 256: 39: 3454:(Where) Locations Model – identifies enterprise locations and the relationships between them 2227:

Knowledge:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_13#Help_with_Zachman_Framework-related_articles

5016: 5003: 4894: 3805:

But you think about that and I will leave item #3 alone while you consider my suggestions.

2963:

I suggest we terminate the discussion here and move to resolution. Which I suggest is this.

2178: 2141: 2062: 871: 804: 739: 4024: 1051:

My first impression from this article is, that Zachman International has adopted the term

8: 4574: 4536: 4479: 4354: 4301: 3969: 3784:

Looking at it, I change my mind about putting the "One-VA Enterprise Architecture" under

1964: 1227: 1178: 1111: 1018: 894: 830: 788: 3442:(Why) Goal Relationship Model – identifies hierarchy of goals that support primary goals 1550:

has been released to the public domain, it should not be considered so released. And as

4890:

The edits done reflect this facts. Please let me know the concern with these changes.

4879:: the above listing (see previous talk item) confirms that later sources did the same. 4398: 4337: 4272: 4237: 4189: 4123: 4075: 3920: 3810: 3724: 3657: 3628: 3339: 3288: 3208: 2981: 2793: 2581: 2369: 2160: 2129: 1871: 1723: 1620: 1563: 1344: 1279: 3445:(How) Process Model – provides process descriptions, input processes, output processes 2424:

And again there is, what I call, "the one image claim". As SunSw0rd states (see above)

1071:

P.S. Maybe it is an idea to add an extra last paragraph to the history section, named

166:

Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

4861: 4296:

we settle on calling the ZF a classification scheme. (Note: scheme, not schema.) --

4011: 3789: 3367:

extant copyrighted image. At least in Dutch law the key-word isn't "similar to" but "

3252: 2969:(b) Move the material that shows Zachman framework as applied to other frameworks to 1546:* Unless someone can produce a validated document from John Zachman stating that the 1009:

Scrum, their position is - if it works they're OK with it. How would that stand with

727: 175: 4772:

is The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), which has its origins in the ...

1490: 4938: 4898: 4853: 4622: 4597: 4552: 4370: 4317: 4253: 4221: 4109:. It provides no techniques, no procedures, no methods. This distinguishes it from 2111: 1887:(f) The VA presentation entirely developed by the US VA is not in the public domain 932: 717: 607: 227: 83: 2664: 2515:

etc. however you want. You just can't post a copy of an image provided by Zachman.

4417: 867: 735: 444: 1356:

I have heard all these arguments before, and I will repeat my former arguments:

1148:

User:Phogg2 however doesn't seem to understand or accept this point of view. --

4750: 4636: 4570: 4532: 4475: 4350: 4332:

methodology -- thing about wikipedia is that multiple viewpoints are posted.)

4297: 3965: 3457:(When) Event Model – identifies and describes events and cycles related by time 3283:

Once there is concurrence on content, then we can discuss colors and fonts. ;)

1830:

Consider this the correction -- based on my understanding. The VA presentation

1579: 890: 826: 474: 301: 1890:(g) The use of this VA presentation within Knowledge is a copyright violation. 1524:. Unless a contract specifically states that whatever you produce for them is 563: 5028: 4991: 4959: 4924: 4869: 4842: 4792: 4688: 4684: 4505: 4443: 4394: 4333: 4268: 4233: 4185: 4154: 4119: 4093: 4071: 4053: 4038: 3985: 3942: 3916: 3898: 3877: 3806: 3746: 3720: 3653: 3643: 3624: 3589: 3563: 3382: 3335: 3304: 3284: 3260: 3235: 3204: 3166: 2977: 2928: 2789: 2706: 2641: 2577: 2489: 2457:

similar matrix-like images in their own developed framework are in violation.

2407: 2365: 2347: 2275: 2243: 2233:

Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Enterprise_architecture

1929: 1867: 1820: 1753: 1719: 1657: 1616: 1587: 1559: 1506: 1391: 1372: 1340: 1322: 1296: 1275: 1261: 1205: 1153: 1060: 948: 916: 851: 702: 667: 588: 567: 532: 5011:

This needs a clearer explanation, and/or putting into more concrete terms.

1042:

Now I noticed an excellent new article on the Zachman International website

3403: 3368: 1847:(d) The copyrighted image may be used within the presentation within the VA 623:

The first parts of this (long lasting) discussions have been archived, see

4136:. I have been studying ontologies for a while now, rewritting some of the 3520: 2327:

has created, been using and presenting these images, clearly as their own.

815: 411: 387: 4677:(and its inceptors) not the Zachman Framework were originally called an ' 4658:

Ostadzadeh, S. Shervin, Fereidoon Shams Aliee, and S. Arash Ostadzadeh. "

4618: 4593: 4548: 4366: 4313: 4249: 4217: 4106: 3432:(When) Event List – list of triggers and cycles important to organization 2440:

Zachman doesn't own the concept. But he does own the image of the concept

2106: 1841:(b) The presentation contains a "copyright encumbrance" in a single slide 1010: 928: 713: 603: 143: 4864:

has been explicitly classified as Enterprise Architecture Framework. --

569: 4421: 2697:

US department of Veterans Affairs Preliminary Project Timeline 2001-02.

3002:

Yes I like to find a solution as well. But I wasn't talking about the

2294:

As base for other enterprise architecture frameworks, see the article

1551: 4413: 4141: 2538: 2287:

By customizing the concept in a particular organization, such as the

208: 1772:

Some details about the development of the VA Enterprise Architecture

4987: 4979: 4955: 4920: 4865: 4838: 4788: 4501: 4439: 4389: 4385: 4165: 4150: 4133: 4089: 4049: 4034: 3990:

I made some changes in the intro, recently rewritten by SunSw0rd :

3938: 3894: 3873: 3742: 3639: 3585: 3559: 3378: 3300: 3256: 3231: 3162: 2924: 2702: 2637: 2485: 2403: 2343: 1925: 1816: 1749: 1653: 1583: 1502: 1387: 1318: 1292: 1201: 1149: 1056: 1014: 944: 912: 847: 698: 663: 584: 565: 2255:

More precise concerning the illustration of the Zachman Framework

2923:

I hope perhaps you are now starting to see what I am meaning? --

1425: 1005:

Scrum is a starting point not a strait jacket, so while it isn't

3423:(What) Material List – list of all known organizational entities 1604:

PPS. And just for the record. Images on Knowledge don't violate

70: 52: 2576:

I think perhaps you are now starting to see what I am meaning?

1911:(4) New work by US federal departments are in the public domain 1055:

as unique name for all frameworks by Zachman International. --

440: 3363:

To my knowledge copyright encumbrance doesn't just comes from

1899:

Now I think it is real simple for the presentation as a whole:

1582:). Then we can get this over with. How simple can that be? -- 570: 477:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

473:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

284:

Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see

4674: 4145: 4110: 3829: 3061:: in the rows; in the columns; in the cells; the letter types 1469: 1465: 1452: 2973:. This will clean up this article and make the other better. 1528:

by them, it isn't. It merely may be used and reused by them.

1257:

The federal employee did not own the copyright to the image.

4707:

CISA Certified Information Systems Auditor All-in-One Exam.

4660:

A method for consistent modeling of Zachman Framework cells

2660:

Back to the illustrations of the VA enterprise architecture

2288: 4755:

Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication.

3407:

Image of Zachman Framework circa 2009, no icons text only.

1838:(a) The presentation itself is not a "copyright violation" 3836:, even started new articles about multiple frameworks as 677:

Article title "Zachman framework" or "Zachman Framework"

3417:(Why) Goal List – primary high level organization goals 2335:

Instead of given it a careful consideration like above,

1902:(1) There is a presentation developed by the US VA team 1167:

update it themselves ... we all had to start somewhere.

2510:

I should have worded my words better. I meant he owns

1844:(c) The presentation may be used freely within the VA. 632:

1.1 The illustration of the original Zachman Framework

4833:

The article doesn't have to represent the latest news

4806:

The update of the lead sentence has been undone, see

4066:

I am okay with both your first two changes -- thanks!

820:

Essay on Extending the RUP with the Zachman Framework

637:

1.2 Contemporary first party sources from the article

4729:

FEAC Certified Enterprise Architect CEA Study Guide,

3994:

I added a extra white line to improve online reading

779:

Knowledge Manual of Style, section on Article titles

526: 417: 82:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3092:Your main argumentation still seems to be: Half of 647:1.4 Two different perceptions on Zachman Framework 4952:The Zachman Framework is an enterprise ontology... 4822:..." has no distinguished meaning, since the term 2960:Therefore one image is copied from the other. QED. 1484:DoD Standards-Based Architecture Planning Process. 190:Computer science articles needing expert attention 116:This article has not yet received a rating on the 5050:B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings 3652:Looks good. Now we can focus on article cleanup. 1032:It is a though. But as far as I know there is no 984:and often tailored to an organisation's own needs 5026: 3420:(How) Process List – list of all known processes 3245:I guess it remains complicated given this last 2221:Knowledge:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/zifa.com 1776:I personally don't understand any of this. The 1142:, as if the article was becoming wrong as well. 1578:document that stated it is so (and send it to 330:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs 4982:offered an acceptable (alternative) solution 4727:Prakash Rao, ‎Dr. Ann Reedy, ‎Beryl Bellman. 652:1.5 A simple example of The Zachman Framework 5040:Unknown-importance Computer science articles 2668:A simple example of the VA Zachman Framework 2325:United States Department of Veterans Affairs 2321:United States Department of Veterans Affairs 2291:matrix by the US Department of the Treasury. 1884:I don't agree, because you seems to pretend: 439:, which collaborates on articles related to 3911:I would like to do that also unfortunately 3696:which has nothing to do with the statement. 3096:are similar, so the image is an exact copy. 3067:: in the rows; in the columns; in the cells 2784:page, specifically much of the stuff under 247:Computer science articles without infoboxes 185:Computer science articles needing attention 19: 2269:Framework named after it's first initiator 151:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 4724:, the Zachman Framework (Zachman, 1987). 1598:VA’s Enterprise Architecture presentation 1377:VA’s Enterprise Architecture presentation 1138:article some one recently added the text 755:- It boils down to whether you would put 618:The illustration of the Zachman Framework 5065:Systems articles in enterprise modelling 3558:Ok thanks. I will see what I can do. -- 3519: 3402: 2879:The original used to create the VA image 2816:But first things first. Your claim (see 2692: 2663: 2274: 4689:A metamodel for enterprise architecture 5027: 3584:This is what I made of it for now. -- 816:Whats wrong with the Zachman Framework 96:Knowledge:WikiProject Computer science 5045:WikiProject Computer science articles 5035:Start-Class Computer science articles 4747:, and his work is still widely used. 4745:framework for enterprise architecture 4006:. Zachman International. April, 2009. 2284:In theory, see for example the image. 99:Template:WikiProject Computer science 2768:the history of the Zachman framework 1274:Therefore I have deleted the image. 959:"a framework" versus "The Framework" 509:This article is within the field of 433:This article is within the scope of 76:This article is within the scope of 15: 4416:. I think you could also call it a 3773:Ditto for Mapping other frameworks. 1413:NIST Enterprise Architecture Model. 38:It is of interest to the following 13: 4645:, see also next discussion item: 4004:"The Zachman Framework™ Evolution" 1308: 500: 475:project-independent quality rating 266:Timeline of computing 2020–present 14: 5081: 4770:enterprise architecture framework 4722:enterprise architecture framework 4679:Enterprise Architecture Framework 4653:Enterprise Architecture Framework 4643:Enterprise Architecture Framework 4420:... or what I have called here a 3761:Enterprise Architecture Framework 3705:Enterprise Architecture Framework 3703:section might be better moved to 2971:Enterprise Architecture Framework 2897:The appearance of the whole image 2782:Enterprise Architecture Framework 2778:Enterprise Architecture Framework 292:Computing articles needing images 4969: 2609:The Zachman Framework™ Evolution 1489: 1477: 1445: 1433: 1418: 1406: 1267:The image is not licensed under 1044:The Zachman Framework™ Evolution 693:. This article is one of them. 625:Talk:Zachman Framework/Archive 2 531: 420: 410: 386: 142: 69: 51: 20: 5060:Top-importance Systems articles 3365:an image that is too similar to 2721:The Zachman Framework Evolution 2317:Zachman Framework Customization 734:without. That sounds OK to me. 487:This article has been rated as 4436:Ontology (information science) 4170:Ontology (information science) 4168:from philosophy, the other is 4138:Ontology (information science) 3913:Knowledge:No_original_research 3387:23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3344:21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 3309:22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3293:21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3265:22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3240:18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3213:15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3203:* Does this sound reasonable? 3171:15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3006:. I was talking about the one 2986:13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 2933:08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 2873:The original Zachman Framework 2798:01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 2711:00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 2675:Now SunSw0rd allready stated: 2646:00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 2586:15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 2494:10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 2412:16:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 2374:13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 2352:18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1934:16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 1876:13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 1825:20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1758:18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1728:13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1662:00:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1625:00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 1606:Knowledge:No original research 1592:23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1568:23:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1511:22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1396:21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1349:21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1327:21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1301:20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1284:20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1: 4557:00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 4541:19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4510:20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4500:Sounds about right to me. -- 4484:19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4448:01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4403:22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4375:00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 4359:19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4342:12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 4322:16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC) 4306:19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4242:14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 4226:14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 4033:I will continue later on. -- 3974:20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 3872:explain, don't you think? -- 3008:VA Framework image as a whole 1110:. Sorry for the long ramble. 672:01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 453:Knowledge:WikiProject Systems 346:Tag all relevant articles in 90:and see a list of open tasks. 5070:WikiProject Systems articles 4810:, for the following reasons 4777:CISSP All-in-one Exam Guide. 4627:12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 4602:22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 4579:09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 4277:15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 4258:13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 4194:19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 4159:20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 4128:18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 4098:13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 4080:13:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 4058:19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 4043:12:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 3161:How is this for a start? -- 3131:Now as to possible solutions 2723:. Scroll down to this image 744:22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 722:21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 707:20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 612:22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 456:Template:WikiProject Systems 355:WikiProject Computer science 131:WikiProject Computer science 79:WikiProject Computer science 7: 3947:11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 3925:11:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 3903:14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 3882:22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3815:03:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3751:01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3729:00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3662:00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3648:21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3633:15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 3594:22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 3568:18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 1000:Then we can understand the 992:The official definition of 286:List of computer scientists 10: 5086: 5021:19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 4996:12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 4964:14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4929:14:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4874:12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4847:12:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4797:15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4522:Sessions citation in Intro 3253:VA Enterprise architecture 3073:: just white; or coloured. 2891:The intention of the image 2265:Framework owned by Zachman 921:16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 899:09:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 876:22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 856:16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 835:09:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 797:19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 767:United States Constitution 585:EACOE Enterprise Framework 493:project's importance scale 118:project's importance scale 4882:Coghillcort responded on 884:Who, precisely, is Phogg2 597:16:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 508: 486: 472: 405: 348:Category:Computer science 124: 115: 102:Computer science articles 64: 46: 5055:B-Class Systems articles 2885:The VA Zachman Framework 1533:WP: No Original Research 1260:The image is not in the 1236:13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 1210:15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1187:11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1158:11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1120:09:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1065:20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1027:20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 953:21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 937:00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 350:and sub-categories with 3545:(Where) Location detail 3512:Detailed Representation 3004:VA Framework as a whole 2249:Knowledge:Sock puppetry 1955:Single-purpose accounts 1248:Zachman Framework Image 732:Enterprise architecture 642:1.3 Inside information 4856:wrote the influential 4705:Peter Gregory (2011). 4019:Check date values in: 3525: 3408: 2698: 2669: 2280: 1596:P.S. But even so. The 1313: 1073:The Zachman Framework™ 1053:The Zachman Framework™ 774:political constitution 730:with initial caps but 551:1: Oct 2005 - dec 2008 505: 428:Systems science portal 311:Computer science stubs 28:This article is rated 4884:User talk:Coghillcort 4687:, and Ovidiu Noran. " 3523: 3406: 2696: 2667: 2278: 2005:(Nov 2007 - Feb 2008) 1312: 1104:The Zachman Framework 1034:The Zachman Framework 994:The Zachman Framework 988:The Zachman Framework 982:The Zachman Framework 969:The Zachman Framework 763:in front of it, e.g. 504: 3536:(How) Process detail 1778:July 20, 2001 letter 511:Enterprise modelling 129:Things you can help 4886:with the argument: 4824:Enterprise Ontology 4820:Enterprise Ontology 4814:The statement "The 4775:Shon Harris (2013) 3939:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3895:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3874:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3743:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3640:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3586:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3560:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3548:(When) Event detail 3379:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3301:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3257:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3232:Marcel Douwe Dekker 3163:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2925:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2703:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2638:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2486:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2404:Marcel Douwe Dekker 2364:Are you clear yet? 2344:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1926:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1817:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1750:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1654:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1584:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1503:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1388:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1319:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1293:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1202:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1150:Marcel Douwe Dekker 1108:a zachman framework 1057:Marcel Douwe Dekker 976:a Zachman framework 965:a Zachman framework 945:Marcel Douwe Dekker 913:Marcel Douwe Dekker 848:Marcel Douwe Dekker 699:Marcel Douwe Dekker 664:Marcel Douwe Dekker 436:WikiProject Systems 4113:for example which 3710:The section under 3699:Much of the whole 3539:(What) Data detail 3533:(Why) Rules detail 3526: 3409: 3280:shameful anyway. 2719:OK. Look right at 2699: 2670: 2471:Zachman Framework. 2281: 1942:The Zachman Affair 1314: 579:History with EACOE 557: 506: 34:content assessment 5004:Rule 7 is unclear 4911: 4897:comment added by 4862:Zachman Framework 4816:Zachman Framework 4567:Link to blog post 3790:Zachman Framework 3542:(Who) Role detail 2342:I don't know. -- 2261:Zachman Framework 1226:Sounds sensible. 728:Zachman Framework 576: 575: 549: 525: 524: 521: 520: 517: 516: 381: 380: 377: 376: 373: 372: 369: 368: 5077: 4977: 4973: 4972: 4910: 4891: 4854:Jaap Schekkerman 4852:And even before 4028: 4022: 4017: 4015: 4007: 3053:the matrix shape 2204:(perhaps others) 2200: 2173:deleted contribs 2151: 2124:deleted contribs 2102: 2075:deleted contribs 2053: 2026:deleted contribs 2004: 1977:deleted contribs 1947:going on here: 1540:TOGAF discussion 1496:TOGAF principle 1493: 1481: 1449: 1437: 1422: 1410: 571: 535: 527: 461: 460: 459:Systems articles 457: 454: 451: 430: 425: 424: 423: 414: 407: 406: 401: 398: 390: 383: 382: 359: 353: 228:Computer science 157:Article requests 146: 139: 138: 126: 125: 104: 103: 100: 97: 94: 93:Computer science 84:Computer science 73: 66: 65: 59:Computer science 55: 48: 47: 31: 25: 24: 16: 5085: 5084: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5025: 5024: 5006: 4970: 4968: 4892: 4826:is not defined. 4804: 4639: 4524: 4418:reference model 4412:often called a 4020: 4018: 4009: 4008: 4002: 3988: 3682: 3680:Article Cleanup 3273: 2976:Your comments? 2662: 2279:ZF's in theory. 2235:, 28 March 2008 2158: 2109: 2060: 2011: 1962: 1944: 1774: 1497: 1494: 1485: 1482: 1456: 1450: 1441: 1438: 1429: 1423: 1414: 1411: 1250: 961: 886: 807: 679: 660: 658:Article updated 620: 581: 572: 566: 540: 458: 455: 452: 449: 448: 445:systems science 426: 421: 419: 399: 396: 365: 362: 357: 351: 339:Project-related 334: 315: 296: 270: 251: 232: 213: 194: 170: 101: 98: 95: 92: 91: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 5083: 5073: 5072: 5067: 5062: 5057: 5052: 5047: 5042: 5037: 5005: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4946: 4945: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4835: 4834: 4831: 4827: 4803: 4800: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4751:Marc Lankhorst 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4673:While neither 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4638: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4560: 4559: 4523: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4406: 4405: 4362: 4361: 4345: 4344: 4309: 4308: 4292: 4291: 4286: 4285: 4280: 4279: 4265: 4245: 4244: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4103: 4067: 4061: 4060: 4031: 4030: 3999: 3995: 3987: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3906: 3905: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3771: 3754: 3753: 3737: 3736: 3716: 3715: 3708: 3697: 3689: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3553: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3524:First version. 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3477: 3474: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3452: 3449: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3418: 3414: 3413: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3373: 3372: 3360: 3359: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3331: 3327: 3326:date.) Anyway. 3323: 3312: 3311: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3201: 3198: 3195: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3154: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3094:the icons used 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3071:the background 3068: 3062: 3056: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2974: 2967: 2964: 2961: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2900: 2894: 2888: 2882: 2876: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2801: 2800: 2772: 2771: 2763: 2762: 2757: 2756: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2715: 2684: 2683: 2680: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2377: 2376: 2362: 2359: 2340: 2339: 2336: 2329: 2328: 2323:. Clearly the 2313: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2300: 2292: 2285: 2271: 2253: 2252: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2230: 2224: 2218: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2153: 2104: 2055: 2054:(Jan-Feb 2008) 2006: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1879: 1878: 1862: 1861: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1805: 1804: 1797: 1796: 1789: 1788: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1580:Knowledge:OTRS 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1556: 1544: 1536: 1529: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1488: 1486: 1483: 1476: 1458: 1457: 1451: 1444: 1442: 1439: 1432: 1430: 1424: 1417: 1415: 1412: 1405: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1336: 1304: 1303: 1287: 1286: 1272: 1269:a free license 1265: 1258: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1228:Greyskinnedboy 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1179:Greyskinnedboy 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1161: 1160: 1144: 1143: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1112:Greyskinnedboy 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1077: 1076: 1068: 1067: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1038: 1019:Greyskinnedboy 998: 997: 990: 985: 978: 960: 957: 956: 955: 924: 923: 885: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 859: 858: 806: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 789:Greyskinnedboy 749: 748: 747: 746: 678: 675: 659: 656: 655: 654: 649: 644: 639: 634: 619: 616: 615: 614: 580: 577: 574: 573: 568: 564: 562: 559: 558: 553: 546: 545: 542: 541: 536: 530: 523: 522: 519: 518: 515: 514: 507: 497: 496: 489:Top-importance 485: 479: 478: 471: 465: 464: 462: 432: 431: 415: 403: 402: 400:Top‑importance 391: 379: 378: 375: 374: 371: 370: 367: 366: 364: 363: 361: 360: 343: 335: 333: 332: 326: 316: 314: 313: 307: 297: 295: 294: 289: 281: 271: 269: 268: 262: 252: 250: 249: 243: 233: 231: 230: 224: 214: 212: 211: 205: 195: 193: 192: 187: 181: 171: 169: 168: 162: 150: 148: 147: 135: 134: 122: 121: 114: 108: 107: 105: 88:the discussion 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5082: 5071: 5068: 5066: 5063: 5061: 5058: 5056: 5053: 5051: 5048: 5046: 5043: 5041: 5038: 5036: 5033: 5032: 5030: 5023: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5009: 4997: 4993: 4989: 4986:. Thanks. -- 4985: 4981: 4976: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4953: 4948: 4947: 4944: 4940: 4936: 4935: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4888: 4887: 4885: 4881: 4880: 4878: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4832: 4828: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4809: 4802:Lead sentence 4799: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4778: 4774: 4773: 4771: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4756: 4752: 4749: 4748: 4746: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4723: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4708: 4704: 4703: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4690: 4686: 4685:Bernus, Peter 4683: 4682: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4654: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4644: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4528: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4347: 4346: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4330: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4294: 4293: 4288: 4287: 4282: 4281: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4171: 4167: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4026: 4013: 4005: 4000: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3891: 3890: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3772: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3762: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3739: 3738: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3713: 3712:Views or Rows 3709: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3695: 3690: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3547: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3522: 3511: 3510: 3506: 3503: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3475: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3465: 3461: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3444: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3405: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3375: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3351: 3350: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3281: 3277: 3271:Discuss Image 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3227: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3196: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3155: 3152: 3151: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3132: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3065:the icons use 3063: 3060: 3059:the text used 3057: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3010:. For example 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2901: 2898: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2870: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2849: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2758: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2739: 2736: 2734:Specifically: 2733: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2666: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2540: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2513: 2512:that specific 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2393:presentation. 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2299: 2298: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2250: 2245: 2241: 2234: 2231: 2229:March 5, 2008 2228: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2210: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2154: 2149: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2108: 2105: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2064: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2010: 2007: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1809: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1779: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1492: 1487: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1454: 1448: 1443: 1440:DOE AE, 1998. 1436: 1431: 1427: 1421: 1416: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1262:public domain 1259: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 995: 991: 989: 986: 983: 979: 977: 974: 973: 972: 970: 966: 954: 950: 946: 941: 940: 939: 938: 934: 930: 922: 918: 914: 910: 909: 903: 902: 901: 900: 896: 892: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 861: 860: 857: 853: 849: 845: 844: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 822: 821: 817: 811: 798: 794: 790: 787: 783: 782: 780: 776: 775: 769: 768: 762: 758: 754: 751: 750: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 724: 723: 719: 715: 711: 710: 709: 708: 704: 700: 694: 692: 691: 686: 685: 674: 673: 669: 665: 653: 650: 648: 645: 643: 640: 638: 635: 633: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 613: 609: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 586: 561: 560: 556: 552: 548: 547: 544: 543: 539: 534: 529: 528: 512: 503: 499: 498: 494: 490: 484: 481: 480: 476: 470: 467: 466: 463: 446: 442: 438: 437: 429: 418: 416: 413: 409: 408: 404: 395: 392: 389: 385: 384: 356: 349: 345: 344: 342: 340: 336: 331: 328: 327: 325: 323: 322: 317: 312: 309: 308: 306: 304: 303: 298: 293: 290: 287: 283: 282: 280: 278: 277: 272: 267: 264: 263: 261: 259: 258: 253: 248: 245: 244: 242: 240: 239: 234: 229: 226: 225: 223: 221: 220: 215: 210: 207: 206: 204: 202: 201: 196: 191: 188: 186: 183: 182: 180: 178: 177: 172: 167: 164: 163: 161: 159: 158: 153: 152: 149: 145: 141: 140: 137: 136: 132: 128: 127: 123: 119: 113: 110: 109: 106: 89: 85: 81: 80: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 49: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 5010: 5007: 4974: 4951: 4942: 4913: 4893:— Preceding 4876: 4857: 4836: 4815: 4805: 4786: 4776: 4754: 4728: 4706: 4640: 4529: 4525: 4381: 4363: 4328: 4310: 4246: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4114: 4085: 4032: 3989: 3717: 3711: 3701:Applications 3700: 3683: 3369:derived work 3364: 3354: 3319: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3247: 3228: 3225: 3181: 3130: 3093: 3070: 3064: 3058: 3052: 3007: 3003: 2953:encumbrance. 2896: 2890: 2884: 2878: 2872: 2845: 2831: 2786:Applications 2728: 2714: 2700: 2688: 2685: 2674: 2671: 2612: 2533: 2511: 2439: 2341: 2330: 2304: 2295: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2254: 2193: 2187: 2181: 2175: 2169: 2163: 2144: 2138: 2132: 2126: 2120: 2114: 2095: 2089: 2083: 2077: 2071: 2065: 2046: 2040: 2034: 2028: 2022: 2016: 2009:Lockezachman 1997: 1991: 1985: 1979: 1973: 1967: 1945: 1857: 1831: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1800: 1792: 1784: 1775: 1679: 1603: 1595: 1576: 1547: 1525: 1521: 1500: 1463: 1459: 1399: 1385: 1355: 1315: 1305: 1251: 1139: 1107: 1103: 1072: 1052: 1033: 1006: 1001: 999: 993: 987: 981: 975: 968: 964: 962: 925: 907: 887: 842: 823: 812: 808: 805:POV concerns 784: 771: 764: 760: 756: 752: 695: 688: 682: 680: 661: 651: 646: 641: 636: 631: 622: 621: 582: 537: 488: 434: 338: 337: 321:Unreferenced 319: 318: 300: 299: 274: 273: 255: 254: 236: 235: 217: 216: 198: 197: 174: 173: 155: 154: 77: 40:WikiProjects 4899:Coghillcort 4860:(2003) the 4731:2011, p. 24 4107:methodology 4086:The 6th row 3694:Paul Harmon 3330:reasonable? 2267:instead of 2251:issue here. 2217:Feb 1, 2008 2201:(Feb 2008) 1552:Sam Holcman 1472:framework: 1011:User:Phogg2 786:Projects'). 30:Start-class 5029:Categories 5013:Ianhowlett 4422:view model 3437:Conceptual 3412:Contextual 2542:framework. 2534:particular 2191:block user 2185:filter log 2152:(Feb 2008) 2142:block user 2136:filter log 2103:(Feb 2008) 2093:block user 2087:filter log 2058:Len Morrow 2044:block user 2038:filter log 1995:block user 1989:filter log 1522:internally 868:EdJohnston 736:EdJohnston 4939:WP:SOURCE 4571:Nickmalik 4533:Nickmalik 4476:Nickmalik 4414:framework 4382:obviously 4351:Nickmalik 4298:Nickmalik 4142:Jan Dietz 4088:...!? -- 3966:Nickmalik 2613:the image 2211:See also 2197:block log 2148:block log 2099:block log 2050:block log 2001:block log 1960:Metaframe 1543:criteria. 1428:AE, 1997. 1002:intention 891:Nickmalik 827:Nickmalik 209:Computing 4980:User:Kku 4978:I think 4941:states: 4907:contribs 4895:unsigned 4877:Appendix 4830:sources. 4753:(2012). 4395:SunSw0rd 4334:SunSw0rd 4269:SunSw0rd 4234:SunSw0rd 4186:SunSw0rd 4166:Ontology 4134:ontology 4120:SunSw0rd 4072:SunSw0rd 4012:cite web 3917:SunSw0rd 3807:SunSw0rd 3792:and the 3721:SunSw0rd 3654:SunSw0rd 3625:SunSw0rd 3487:Physical 3336:SunSw0rd 3285:SunSw0rd 3205:SunSw0rd 2978:SunSw0rd 2790:SunSw0rd 2578:SunSw0rd 2539:this one 2366:SunSw0rd 2244:SunSw0rd 2223:Feb 2008 2167:contribs 2156:Ron Gaba 2118:contribs 2069:contribs 2020:contribs 1971:contribs 1868:SunSw0rd 1832:contains 1720:SunSw0rd 1617:SunSw0rd 1560:SunSw0rd 1373:SunSw0rd 1361:himself. 1341:SunSw0rd 1276:SunSw0rd 1015:User:Mdd 589:Ghchinoy 538:Archives 257:Maintain 200:Copyedit 3462:Logical 2820:24/09): 2383:Phogg2. 2319:at the 1858:concept 1455:, 2003. 770:versus 555:2: 2009 491:on the 450:Systems 441:systems 397:B‑class 394:Systems 238:Infobox 176:Cleanup 4818:is an 4637:Quotes 4619:Phogg2 4594:Phogg2 4549:Phogg2 4367:Phogg2 4314:Phogg2 4250:Phogg2 4218:Phogg2 4021:|date= 2914:image. 2263:means 2107:Phogg2 1129:wrong. 929:Phogg2 753:Agreed 714:Phogg2 604:Phogg2 219:Expand 36:scale. 4779:p. 46 4757:p. 24 4709:p. 25 4675:GERAM 4438:. -- 4329:those 4146:Delft 4111:TOGAF 3998:this. 3986:Intro 3830:DODAF 3394:now). 3358:...!? 2949:that. 2727:from 2331:Now: 1680:image 1548:image 1526:owned 1470:TAFIM 1466:TOGAF 1453:DODAF 1426:C4ISR 1368:start 1136:TOGAF 726:Yes, 587:? -- 302:Stubs 276:Photo 133:with: 5017:talk 4992:talk 4984:here 4975:Done 4960:talk 4925:talk 4903:talk 4870:talk 4843:talk 4808:here 4793:talk 4623:talk 4598:talk 4575:talk 4553:talk 4537:talk 4506:talk 4480:talk 4461:not. 4444:talk 4399:talk 4371:talk 4355:talk 4338:talk 4318:talk 4302:talk 4273:talk 4254:talk 4238:talk 4222:talk 4190:talk 4155:talk 4124:talk 4115:does 4094:talk 4076:talk 4054:talk 4039:talk 4025:help 3970:talk 3943:talk 3921:talk 3899:talk 3878:talk 3842:TEAF 3838:NIST 3832:and 3811:talk 3747:talk 3725:talk 3658:talk 3644:talk 3629:talk 3590:talk 3564:talk 3383:talk 3355:here 3340:talk 3320:mean 3305:talk 3289:talk 3261:talk 3248:move 3236:talk 3209:talk 3167:talk 2982:talk 2929:talk 2847:here 2818:here 2794:talk 2729:2001 2725:here 2707:talk 2642:talk 2582:talk 2490:talk 2408:talk 2370:talk 2348:talk 2305:here 2297:here 2289:TEAF 2242:Now 2179:logs 2161:talk 2130:logs 2112:talk 2081:logs 2063:talk 2032:logs 2014:talk 1983:logs 1965:talk 1930:talk 1872:talk 1821:talk 1754:talk 1724:talk 1658:talk 1621:talk 1588:talk 1564:talk 1507:talk 1392:talk 1371:Now 1345:talk 1323:talk 1297:talk 1280:talk 1232:talk 1206:talk 1183:talk 1154:talk 1116:talk 1106:and 1061:talk 1037:etc. 1023:talk 1013:and 1007:pure 967:and 949:talk 933:talk 917:talk 908:here 895:talk 872:talk 852:talk 843:here 831:talk 793:talk 765:The 740:talk 718:talk 703:talk 690:here 684:here 668:talk 608:talk 593:talk 443:and 4988:Mdd 4956:Mdd 4954:-- 4921:Mdd 4919:-- 4912:... 4866:Mdd 4839:Mdd 4837:-- 4789:Mdd 4787:-- 4502:Mdd 4440:Mdd 4390:Mdd 4386:Mdd 4380:It 4151:Mdd 4144:in 4090:Mdd 4050:Mdd 4035:Mdd 3858:me? 3834:FEA 3794:EAF 3786:EAF 3768:EAF 2902:... 2761:VA. 1815:-- 1386:-- 971:: 911:-- 759:or 757:The 483:Top 112:??? 5031:: 5019:) 4994:) 4962:) 4927:) 4909:) 4905:• 4872:) 4845:) 4795:) 4625:) 4600:) 4577:) 4555:) 4539:) 4508:) 4482:) 4446:) 4401:) 4373:) 4357:) 4340:) 4320:) 4304:) 4275:) 4256:) 4240:) 4224:) 4192:) 4157:) 4126:) 4096:) 4078:) 4056:) 4041:) 4016:: 4014:}} 4010:{{ 3972:) 3945:) 3923:) 3915:. 3901:) 3880:) 3840:, 3813:) 3749:) 3727:) 3660:) 3646:) 3631:) 3592:) 3566:) 3385:) 3342:) 3307:) 3291:) 3263:) 3238:) 3226:+ 3211:) 3182:+ 3169:) 2984:) 2931:) 2796:) 2788:. 2709:) 2644:) 2615:". 2584:) 2492:) 2410:) 2372:) 2350:) 1932:) 1874:) 1823:) 1756:) 1726:) 1660:) 1623:) 1608:. 1590:) 1566:) 1509:) 1394:) 1347:) 1325:) 1299:) 1282:) 1234:) 1208:) 1185:) 1156:) 1118:) 1063:) 1025:) 1017:? 951:) 935:) 919:) 897:) 874:) 854:) 833:) 795:) 781:. 772:A 742:) 720:) 705:) 670:) 610:) 595:) 358:}} 352:{{ 5015:( 4990:( 4958:( 4923:( 4901:( 4868:( 4841:( 4791:( 4621:( 4596:( 4573:( 4551:( 4535:( 4504:( 4478:( 4442:( 4424:. 4397:( 4369:( 4353:( 4336:( 4316:( 4300:( 4271:( 4252:( 4236:( 4220:( 4188:( 4153:( 4122:( 4092:( 4074:( 4052:( 4037:( 4027:) 4023:( 3968:( 3941:( 3919:( 3897:( 3876:( 3809:( 3796:. 3770:. 3745:( 3723:( 3707:. 3656:( 3642:( 3627:( 3588:( 3562:( 3381:( 3338:( 3322:? 3303:( 3287:( 3259:( 3234:( 3207:( 3165:( 2980:( 2927:( 2850:. 2792:( 2705:( 2640:( 2580:( 2488:( 2406:( 2368:( 2346:( 2199:) 2194:· 2188:· 2182:· 2176:· 2170:· 2164:· 2159:( 2150:) 2145:· 2139:· 2133:· 2127:· 2121:· 2115:· 2110:( 2101:) 2096:· 2090:· 2084:· 2078:· 2072:· 2066:· 2061:( 2052:) 2047:· 2041:· 2035:· 2029:· 2023:· 2017:· 2012:( 2003:) 1998:· 1992:· 1986:· 1980:· 1974:· 1968:· 1963:( 1928:( 1870:( 1819:( 1752:( 1722:( 1656:( 1619:( 1586:( 1562:( 1535:. 1505:( 1390:( 1343:( 1321:( 1295:( 1278:( 1271:. 1264:. 1230:( 1204:( 1181:( 1152:( 1114:( 1059:( 1021:( 947:( 931:( 915:( 893:( 870:( 850:( 829:( 814:( 791:( 761:A 738:( 716:( 701:( 666:( 606:( 591:( 513:. 495:. 469:B 447:. 341:: 324:: 305:: 288:) 279:: 260:: 241:: 222:: 203:: 179:: 160:: 120:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index