Talk:The Open Group Architecture Framework

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference Number 3 is no longer accessible[edit]

It gives a "we cannot find this page"-error. 199.64.75.181 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

meta information[edit]

Too much infomation about the hisotry and community of TAGAF, not enough about what it actually IS. I have moved the history and culture parts to the end. Can anyone provide more techncal detail of the actual content of the framework? (Or is it so nebulous that this is all the content there really is...?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.237.181 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is TOGAF?[edit]

TOGAF is an architecture framework - The Open Group Architecture Framework. It enables you to design, evaluate, and build the right architecture for your organization.

The key to TOGAF is the Architecture Development Method (ADM) - a reliable, proven method for developing an IT enterprise architecture that meets the needs of your business.

What kind of architecture does TOGAF deal with?

There are four types of architecture that are commonly accepted as subsets of an overall enterprise architecture, all of which TOGAF is designed to support:

  • A Business (or Business Process) Architecture - this defines the business strategy, governance, organization, and key business processes.
  • A Data Architecture - this describes the structure of an organization's logical and physical data assets and data management resources.
  • An Applications Architecture - this kind of architecture provides a blueprint for the individual application systems to be deployed, their interactions, and their relationships to the core business processes of the organization.
  • A Technology Architecture - this describes the logical software and hardware capabilities that are required to support the deployment of business, data, and application services. This includes IT infrastructure, middleware, networks, communications, processing, standards, etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:‎84.162.83.96 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Page[edit]

I'll attempt some updates to the article over the next couple of weeks -- it appears to need a lot of work. --SunSw0rd 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- TOGAF image deletion[edit]

The following discussion reposted from the respective user talk pages...

Question -- why did you delete the TOGAF ADM process flow image? I requested and received specific permission from the Open Group for posting this image, and such permission was listed in the wikipedia image tags. You provided no information in the TOGAF discussion page for such deletion, you merely deleted it. Why? SunSw0rd 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the query. The image was tagged for deletion by another editor because it had an improper license. You indicated that permission was extended to Wikipedia to use the image, but the permission was not extended to third parties. That license is not compatible with Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's license allows its content to be used and duplicated anywhere. Therefore, images can only be used here if permission is granted to use them anywhere. Make sense? Aguerriero (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however, looking at the current 10 guidelines for "free use" WP:FUC it appears that it meets the guidelines for copyrighted material, that is, it meets all 10 guidelines. Where did the requirement that anything made available for Wikipedia must be explicitly placed into the public domain for anyone else to grab and use, even commercially, come from? Because -- this image does meet all 10 criteria, including and especially number 10. It appears that a more restrictive meaning is being applied over and above those 10 criteria -- does this mean that the criteria need to be expanded to 11? SunSw0rd 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 criteria you cite are only for fair use rationale. There is an overreaching criterion for everything on Wikipedia, however, that is must be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, meaning anyone is allowed to use it. Therefore, anything here that states it is only allowed on Wikipedia must be deleted as it is incompatible with our overall license. For more specific reference to images like the one I deleted, see this post from Jimbo Wales. Aguerriero (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

May we delete the text that opens this "talk" page that appears to be an extract from the TOGAF topic itself. It doesn't appear to serve any purpose.--Nickmalik (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the TOGAF topic attempt to define what an EA framework is?[edit]

There is a topic in the Wikipedia for Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. I would like to see the section of this article that attempts to redefine the concept of an EA framework to be removed and appropriate content moved over to the topic on EA Frameworks in a generic fashion. This is not the topic for redefining the term. --Nickmalik (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this comment and have marked the statement as dubious.--colinwheeler (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source there and referted all your attepts to changed "Enterprise Architecture" in "enterprise architecture". The first is a standard used in over 50 articles. Changing it in only 3 articles doesn't make no sense. If you want it changed all over Wikipedia you should first start a discussion about it on some talk page.
I happened to find a text on linkedin about a person with your same user name. This text "Colin Wheeler’s Summary" states:
Focused on pragmatic management and architecture within Enterprises, I deliver quantifiable benefits to my client that result in them being able to gain traction from Enterprise Architecture and IS assets. Through new framework development and industry standard framework integration, me and a team are seeking to revolutionise the EA space and create a practical EA framework that will move companies into the IS landscape of the future.
I noticed the the term "Enterprise Architecture" is also written with capitals. Now this is just an example. I changed all "enterprise architecture" back to "Enterprise Architecture", because:
  1. "Enterprise Architecture" is a term which often gets abbreviated in EA.
  2. This EA is also part of may abreviations in the field EAF, FEA, FEAF, TEAF... etc.
  3. Texts in the field also both talk of "Enterprise Architecture" and "enterprise architecture".
  4. There is no real standard here.
  5. "Enterprise Architecture" is still a new term which emerged and become used only decade ago. The two capitals express that this is a new term.
I personly prefer is both terms "Enterprise Architecture" and "enterprise architecture" remain in use in wikipedia for now, and taht not one gets terminated.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you chose to change this back. Allow me to explain. As per my comments on your talk page, in English only proper nouns are capitalised. I thank you for your very thorough pedantry in finding that I too have made the same mistake in my CV, which I do not personally see a reason to provide a link to on this page. You might notice for instance in the TOGAF material, the phrase is generally written in the lower case. Mistakes are often made though. You might also notice that in something such as FEAF, this refers to the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework and thus is a proper noun, both being written in capitals in full or in the abbreviations. In English there are not really any general rules about the capitalisation of abbreviations but generally they are set by common practice. EA has been abbreviated in capitals by most so I see no reason to change it. However according to the rules of English, unless "enterprise architecture" is used as a proper noun, it should be written in the lower case, unless of course it is used in the Title Case. Once again, many thanks for your very comprehensive research into my CV and I will ensure that this problem is also sorted out. Regards Colin Wheeler 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I started a central discussion about this on the Talk:Enterprise architecture#Capitalisation of enterprise architecture.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to get back here on Nickmalik's plan to remove the redefinition of Enterprise Architecture (EA) to the Enterprise Architecture Framework article, where you Colin also seems to agree on. Now I don't approve about this either, for two reasons:
  • First, all kinds of Enterprise Architecture Framework (re)define Enterprise Architecture themselves, and Wikipedia can reproduce this as long as it is well cited.
  • Second, those redefinitions are often just an other approach to Enterprise Architecture. To explain this new matter it Wikipedia, I think it helps if we represent multiple of those apporaches.
I think it helps people to understand, if the story about AE and otehr terms gets told several times in several articles. It's is an illusion to think that you can explain all about AEF in one article in one way. Doesn't AE explains explicitly that there exists multiple perspectives on a complex matter?
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the points you raised here Marcel, but would caveat in saying that I believe then we should state in the section that this is a statement from TOGAF about what TOGAF's definition of EA is. Thus a statment such as "The definition of EA from TOGAF is as follows:".
--Colin Wheeler 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talk • contribs)
I think this is a matter of person taste. I prefer adding a source, as I did. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that with the source it works. My closing comment on this section would be that we need to change the word methodology to method. A methodology is the study of methods and the orriginal TOGAF source refered to also uses the term method and not methodology. Thanks.
--Colin Wheeler 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

TOGAF certified tools[edit]

In what sense are these tools "TOGAF certified"? There are a number of tools that support TOGAF in some way. For example, Orbus iServer -- does that make it "TOGAF certified"? Perhaps this section should be renamed to something like: "EA Tools That Support TOGAF" or something like that. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section looks like it is an "Advertisement" of tools - should be removed.

TOGAF 9 has been released[edit]

The following message has been moved here from the article.

This page, relating mostly to TOGAF 8, a little out of date now that TOGAF 9 has been released. -- 87.74.80.83 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section about "Alternative enterprise architecture frameworks"[edit]

The following listing is removed from the article:

Further comment

The listing is removed for the following reasons:

-- Mdd (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling, Springer, 2008.
  2. ^ L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, On reference models for collaborative networked organizations, International Journal Production Research, Vol 46, Nº 9, May 2008, pp 2453–2469.

TOGAF a registered trademark of The Open Group?[edit]

The current article claims TOGAF is a registered trademark. Now I tried to check in reliable third party sources, and did find that in 2007 the Open Group had registered

  • The Open Group®,
  • TOGAFTM,
  • Boundaryless Information FlowTM
  • ArchiMate®,
  • Making Standards Work®, and
  • UNIX®

If TOGAF® itseld is registered lately, an independent source should be added to confirm that -- Mdd (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now the 2011 blog "TOGAF® Trademark Success" is reinstalled as source. Still an other independent source would be nice -- Mdd (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The online TOGAF manual itself claims, at the bottom of each page: "TOGAF is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries."

Also, http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:8kq9oe.2.1

User:Ejrrjs says What? 12:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TOGAF is free to use[edit]

The Criticism section claimed the following: "TOGAF, much like ITIL, requires the purchase of materials and taking of tests, which are chargeable items."

This is entirely false; TOGAF is unashamedly free to use, with the TOGAF manual available to read online with no restrictions on internal company use. [1] The only "requirement" would be if you wanted a hard copy of the TOGAF manual, in which case you'd need to pay for the book. You only need to take exams if you wish to be TOGAF qualified - you don't need to be qualified to actually use TOGAF. Kronix1986 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it's certainly not simple to use freely... "You may download TOGAF Version 9.1 under a free, personal, 90-day Evaluation License; and you may then go on to use it internally under a free, perpetual, Corporate License or a free, perpetual, Academic License ... After expiry of the 90-day evaluation period you should apply for a more permanent License ... You are under no obligation to take out any of these licenses. However, if you decline, you will be obliged to send an email confirming that you have removed the TOGAF 9.1 documentation from your machine." [2]

109.145.87.117 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf91/downloads.htm#Non-Member. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

defining reusable solutions building blocks[edit]

I found many English grammar mistakes which I fixed, but one was particularly egregious:

defining reusable solutions building blocks

I am not sure if they wanted to say:

defining reusable solutions and building blocks

or

defining reusable solutions as building blocks

So I just deleted the "building blocks" all together for now. --Zaurus (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I find it unethical that so much of this article focuses on "criticism", considering that half of the references in the criticism section are from a single author (Kotusev). It is misleading and unfair. I don't edit the article as I am no architecture practitionner, but think this article should be tagged as biased according to Wikipedia standards.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Open_Group_Architecture_Framework&oldid=1210686148"