Talk:Zachman Framework

message: Does anyone have any historical information about the relationship between the Zachman Framework and the EACOE Enterprise Framework? 
--Ghchinoy (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The EACOE Enterprise Framework was developed by Sam Holcman, who co-founded the (now disestablished) Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement with John Zachman. Phogg2 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History with EACOE 

message: The first parts of this (long lasting) discussions have been archived, see Talk:Zachman Framework/Archive 2
:1.1 The illustration of the original Zachman Framework 
:1.2 Contemporary first party sources from the article 
:1.3 Inside information 
:1.4 Two different perceptions on Zachman Framework 
:1.5 A simple example of The Zachman Framework 
=== Article updated ===
I updated the article. Again this is just a restart. I think it still can use more work here and there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The illustration of the Zachman Framework 

message: I updated the article. Again this is just a restart. I think it still can use more work here and there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article updated 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 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.
Nickmalik (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 directly from the current Zachman International website. I replaced most if not all of those contributions, mostly with secondary sources, according to Wikipedia policies, see here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who, precisely, is Phogg2 

message: 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 said things that the cited article did not say.  That is original work, and does not belong in Wikipedia.  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.
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" 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.  --Nickmalik (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Phogg2 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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.  Link to blog post  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.--Nickmalik (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 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. Phogg2 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  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. Phogg2 (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sessions citation in Intro 

message: Quotes from notable third party sources, that explicitly describe the Zachman Framework as an  Enterprise Architecture Framework, see also next discussion item: 
:* ... Such an overview can not be organized regardless of incorporating a logical structure called Enterprise Architecture Framework. Among various proposed frameworks, the Zachman Framework (ZF) is one of the most prominent ways of
:** Ostadzadeh, S. Shervin, Fereidoon Shams Aliee, and S. Arash Ostadzadeh. "A method for consistent modeling of Zachman Framework cells." Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering. Springer Netherlands, 2007. 375-380.
:* While neither GERAM (and its inceptors) not the Zachman Framework were originally called an 'Enterprise Architecture Framework  (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... 
:** Bernus, Peter, and Ovidiu Noran. "A metamodel for enterprise architecture." Enterprise Architecture, Integration and Interoperability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 56-65
:* The Zachman enterprise architecture framework, established in the late 1980s, continues to be the dominant EA standard today...
:** Peter Gregory (2011). CISA Certified Information Systems Auditor All-in-One Exam. p. 25
:* In 1984, John Zachman, while at IBM, developed the first IT architecture framework, which he continued to develop into the most recognized enterprise architecture framework, the Zachman Framework (Zachman, 1987). 
:** Prakash Rao, ‎Dr. Ann Reedy, ‎Beryl Bellman. FEAC Certified Enterprise Architect CEA Study Guide, 2011, p. 24
:* 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. 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 framework for enterprise architecture, and his work is still widely used.
:** Marc Lankhorst (2012). Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication. p. 24
:* The Zachman framework is a two-dimensional model that uses six basic communication interrogatives (What, How, ... Another enterprise architecture framework is The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), which has its origins in the  ...
:** Shon Harris (2013) CISSP All-in-one Exam Guide. p. 46
-- Mdd (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: "Rule 7 The logic is recursive : The logic is relational between two instances of the same entity."
This needs a clearer explanation, and/or putting into more concrete terms.  Ianhowlett (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule 7 is unclear