Static Application Provider Architecture without xxxUsage?
Posted: 14 Dec 2009, 21:42
Hallo,
I have a question regarding the "Usage" objects used to model relationships between Application Providers (and other objects), e.g. static relationships between Application Providers. I've read the topic "http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... p?f=8&t=78", but have further questions. Since this seems to be a pretty low level discussion, I say sorry in advance regarding the length of this post.
Situation: In our enterprise static relationships between applications (or Application Provider in essential model) are an important entity. The organisation is used to discuss integration architecture issues based on these entities. Today detailed information about our so called Application Interfaces are kept in excel sheets, including many attributes. We now consider to use essential protege in the future.
Problem: When modeling static relationships with essential xxx_Architecture objects, the RELATION objects are actually connecting two Usage objects.
Sample: We have Application Provider A and B. A interacts with B via an interface called "getCustomers". In both Static_Application_Provider_Architectures for A and B I want to visualize this interface via a relationship (which is actually an :APU-TO-APU-STATIC-RELATION instance). Due to the essential decision to connect Application_Provider_Usage objects instead of the Application_Provider objects directly, this leads to a duplication of the interface, which is not acceptable for our requirements.
Questions:
a) Is it generally a good idea to model our so called Application Interfaces via essential Static Architectures? Or did I miss the proper way to use the essential meta model?
b) I tried to extend the essential model with my own Static Architeture class and RELATION class (via subclassing), directly connecting Application Provder objects - that worked fine for me. BUT: Is that a recommended way to use essential? It seems to be a deep "intrusion", am I right that we will loose ability to upgrade to future essential model extension?
Thanks in advance for any hints and clarification.
I have a question regarding the "Usage" objects used to model relationships between Application Providers (and other objects), e.g. static relationships between Application Providers. I've read the topic "http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... p?f=8&t=78", but have further questions. Since this seems to be a pretty low level discussion, I say sorry in advance regarding the length of this post.
Situation: In our enterprise static relationships between applications (or Application Provider in essential model) are an important entity. The organisation is used to discuss integration architecture issues based on these entities. Today detailed information about our so called Application Interfaces are kept in excel sheets, including many attributes. We now consider to use essential protege in the future.
Problem: When modeling static relationships with essential xxx_Architecture objects, the RELATION objects are actually connecting two Usage objects.
Sample: We have Application Provider A and B. A interacts with B via an interface called "getCustomers". In both Static_Application_Provider_Architectures for A and B I want to visualize this interface via a relationship (which is actually an :APU-TO-APU-STATIC-RELATION instance). Due to the essential decision to connect Application_Provider_Usage objects instead of the Application_Provider objects directly, this leads to a duplication of the interface, which is not acceptable for our requirements.
Questions:
a) Is it generally a good idea to model our so called Application Interfaces via essential Static Architectures? Or did I miss the proper way to use the essential meta model?
b) I tried to extend the essential model with my own Static Architeture class and RELATION class (via subclassing), directly connecting Application Provder objects - that worked fine for me. BUT: Is that a recommended way to use essential? It seems to be a deep "intrusion", am I right that we will loose ability to upgrade to future essential model extension?
Thanks in advance for any hints and clarification.