Talk:Zachman Framework

History with EACOE

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)

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)

The illustration of the Zachman Framework

The first parts of this (long lasting) discussions have been archived, see Talk:Zachman Framework/Archive 2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)

Article title "Zachman framework" or "Zachman Framework"

At the moment we are discussing the capitalisation of terms in the field of enterprise architecture, see here and we are reviewing articles titles in and around the field of enterprise architecture, see here. This article is one of them.

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? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Marcel. "Zachman Framework" is a proper noun, like "Atlantic Ocean" and "Los Angeles Airport." -- Phogg2 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Zachman Framework with initial caps but Enterprise architecture without. That sounds OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - It boils down to whether you would put The or A in front of it, e.g. The United States Constitution versus A political constitution, (i.e. capitalised when used as a proper noun, sentence style when referring to phenomena or general terms). Of course many articles on Wikipedia break this, favouring Title case capitalisation, but this is explained best by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section on Article titles.

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 Projects'). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

POV concerns

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 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.

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 (Whats wrong with the Zachman Framework) 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.Essay on Extending the RUP with the Zachman Framework

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 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.Nickmalik (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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 here. I have no problem, if you restore the separate critism chapter. I will comment on your further concerns soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

It would be good to include criticism in the article, but with reliable sources. Notable criticism would surely have been published somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Who, precisely, is Phogg2

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)

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)

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 Marcel and others have been worthwhile. I'll look into the personal Wikipedia 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. Phogg2 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

"a framework" versus "The Framework"

Perhaps we can resolve some of this ongoing saga by better highlighting the difference between a Zachman framework and The Zachman Framework:

a Zachman framework

A tool/checklist for enterprise architecture, derived originally from any one of a number of historical versions of The Zachman Framework and often tailored to an organisation's own needs

The Zachman Framework

The official definition of The Zachman Framework, as authorised and validated by Zachman International, with a validly referenced statement/diagram of what it was like at each stage in its evolution

Then we can understand the intention 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 Scrum is a starting point not a strait jacket, so while it isn't pure Scrum, their position is - if it works they're OK with it. How would that stand with User:Phogg2 and User:Mdd? Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a though. But as far as I know there is no The Zachman Framework 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™" etc.

Now I noticed an excellent new article on the Zachman International website The Zachman Framework™ Evolution, 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.

My first impression from this article is, that Zachman International has adopted the term The Zachman Framework™ as unique name for all frameworks by Zachman International. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it is an idea to add an extra last paragraph to the history section, named The Zachman Framework™ to explain about the ongoing effort of Zachman International to maintain one standard Zachman Framework.

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

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 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.

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 refer to all vacuum cleaners as hoovers (with a lowercase 'h'), hence my point about making a distinction between The Zachman Framework and a zachman framework. Sorry for the long ramble. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your last remark. Your comments here are much appreciated. In Wikipedia 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 wrong.

There seem to be a larger problem here, how to represent AE frameworks which keep developing? In the TOGAF article some one recently added the text "This page, relating mostly to TOGAF 8, a little out of date now that TOGAF 9 has been released", as if the article was becoming wrong as well.

I think it is inevitable, that articles like this can't focuss on just the latest update. I think Wikipedia 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. User:Phogg2 however doesn't seem to understand or accept this point of view. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 opinion) - and the copyright holder for something is not necessarily the best source to get a fully rounded view on something. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. But if there is any alternative way to illustrate the article, non-free use/fair use is not 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-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Zachman Framework Image

The image that has been used in this page asserts that it is in the public domain (see [Simple_example_Zachman_Framework_double_row.jpg]. 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 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 Wikipedia.

• The federal employee did not own the copyright to the image.
• The image is not in the public domain.
• The image is not licensed under a free license.
• Therefore I have deleted the image. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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:

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 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 himself.
2. 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.
3. 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 start
4. Now SunSw0rd 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 VA’s Enterprise Architecture presentation 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.
5. 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.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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:

• 
  NIST Enterprise Architecture Model.
• 
  C4ISR AE, 1997.
• 
  DOE AE, 1998.
• 
  DODAF, 2003.

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.

And there is more A lot of the ideas in Enterprise Architecture are depending on one an other. For example the TOGAF principle from 1995 is based on the DoD Standards-Based Architecture Planning Process developed in the early 1990s TAFIM framework:

• 
  DoD Standards-Based Architecture Planning Process.
• 
  TOGAF principle

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...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

* 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 internally. Unless a contract specifically states that whatever you produce for them is owned by them, it isn't. It merely may be used and reused by them.

* 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 Wikipedia 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 WP: No Original Research.

* Regarding the TOGAF image. I myself contacted TOGAF and received permission to release it to Wikipedia. That image was removed and the debate regarding it exists on the TOGAF discussion 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 Wikipedia image permission criteria.

* Unless someone can produce a validated document from John Zachman stating that the image has been released to the public domain, it should not be considered so released. And as Sam Holcman 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 become involved, Wikipedia cannot absolve itself by removing the image then. It will be too late. The image does not meet the Wikipedia content criteria and it is as simple as that.

* 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 Wikipedia. They don't care if anyone prints it. Wikipedia just doesn't have the right to post it and assert it as being in the public domain -- since it isn't. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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 document that stated it is so (and send it to Wikipedia:OTRS). Then we can get this over with. How simple can that be? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. But even so. The VA’s Enterprise Architecture presentation 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.

PPS. And just for the record. Images on Wikipedia don't violate Wikipedia:No original research.

Interesting. Can you point me to the Wikipedia text asserting Wikipedia 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. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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 is not new. The VA presentation is online available for more then seven years now. But when Wikipedia started using this image, they started attacking us. It seems to me you are at the wrong adress. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You say the 11 page presentation is new work. Fine. But they incorporate the image 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 writing, from the Open Group to create my own copy of the image and release that image to Wikipedia -- and it was reverted because that permission did not place the image in the public domain.

And that was correct -- even though the Open Group officially told me to create a copy of the image, and expressly granted permission for Wikipedia 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 did so -- and BTW who did not get express permission from Zachman to do so -- does not place the image in the public domain.

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. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Some details about the development of the VA Enterprise Architecture

I personally don't understand any of this. The July 20, 2001 letter of John Zachman to the Department of Veterans Affairs, gives an inside of the developement of the VA EA. He wrote:

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 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.

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 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!!

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 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...

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.

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...!?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

(a) The presentation itself is not a "copyright violation"

(b) The presentation contains a "copyright encumbrance" in a single slide

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

(d) The copyrighted image may be used within the presentation within the VA

(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.

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

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. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, because you seems to pretend:

(f) The VA presentation entirely developed by the US VA is not in the public domain

(g) The use of this VA presentation within Wikipedia is a copyright violation.

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

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

(2) It is based on the concept of the Zachnman Framework and the given 2001 version of the Zachman Framework by Zachman International

(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

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

(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.

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Zachman Affair

The previous ongoing discussion makes me wonder if there is a Zachman Affair here initited by Zachman International to control this Wikipedia 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 going on here:

• There has been an ongoing effort 2007/2008 by Zachman International to directly edited/spammed this article with:
  • Single-purpose accounts
    • Metaframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
    • Lockezachman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jan-Feb 2008)
    • Len Morrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
    • Phogg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
    • Ron Gaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
      • (perhaps others)
  • See also
    • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#Help with Zachman Framework-related links? Feb 1, 2008
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/zifa.com Feb 2008
    • Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_13#Help_with_Zachman_Framework-related_articles March 5, 2008
    • Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Enterprise_architecture, 28 March 2008
• Now SunSw0rd 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 Wikipedia:Sock puppetry issue here.

More precise concerning the illustration of the Zachman Framework

1. 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 Zachman Framework means Framework owned by Zachman instead of Framework named after it's first initiator
2. Noumerous kinds of presentations have been made of the Zachman Framework since it's first presentation in the 1980s..

   

   ZF's in theory.

   1. In theory, see for example the image.
   2. By customizing the concept in a particular organization, such as the TEAF matrix by the US Department of the Treasury.
   3. As base for other enterprise architecture frameworks, see the article here
   4. And Zachman Internation themselves have at least developed a dozen different kinds of illustrations of the Zachman Framework, see here
3. 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.
4. 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 Zachman Framework Customization at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Clearly the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has created, been using and presenting these images, clearly as their own.

Now:

• Instead of given it a careful consideration like above,
• there seems to be a keep it simple policy with the ZF&Co. "We created the image and we keep it...!?

I don't know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 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.

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.

Are you clear yet? SunSw0rd (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Phogg2.

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 presentation.

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 Zachman Framework.

I think, the greatest deception of all here is the claim that John Zachman or Zachman Internations owns the one image of the concept. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I should have worded my words better. I meant he owns that specific 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" etc. however you want. You just can't post a copy of an image provided by Zachman.

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 particular 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 this one 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 framework.

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.

I think perhaps you are now starting to see what I am meaning? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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 The Zachman Framework™ Evolution. There are at least a dozen different images with slightly different names, none of them is "the image".

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the illustrations of the VA enterprise architecture

A simple example of the VA Zachman Framework

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.

Now SunSw0rd allready stated:

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

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

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

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 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:

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

I still assume, that the creation of the whole Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework was just a part of this development. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Look right at The Zachman Framework Evolution. Scroll down to this image here from 2001. 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.

Specifically:

(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".

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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 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.

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 VA.

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

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 Enterprise Architecture Framework page. I suggest further that a whole lot of the stuff currently on the Zachman Framework page might be better suited to the Enterprise Architecture Framework page, specifically much of the stuff under Applications. SunSw0rd (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

But first things first. Your claim (see here 24/09):

...the image is simply a reprint of the Zachman Framework image which is owned by John Zachman.

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 here.

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 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...!?

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

1. The original Zachman Framework : There is not just one 2001 original. There are also the 1987 version, and the 1992 version, the 1993 version... etc.
2. The original used to create the VA image : 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.
3. The VA Zachman Framework : 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.
4. The intention of the image : 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...!?
5. The appearance of the whole image: 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.
6. ...

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 image.

I hope perhaps you are now starting to see what I am meaning? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 that.

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 encumbrance.

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 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.

Therefore one image is copied from the other. QED.

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

(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.

(b) Move the material that shows Zachman framework as applied to other frameworks to Enterprise Architecture Framework. This will clean up this article and make the other better.

Your comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I like to find a solution as well. But I wasn't talking about the VA Framework as a whole. I was talking about the one VA Framework image as a whole. For example

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.

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:

1. the matrix shape: it's shape; it's lay out; single or double row; line thickness, colour of the rows an columns
2. the text used : in the rows; in the columns; in the cells; the letter types
3. the icons use : in the rows; in the columns; in the cells
4. the background : just white; or coloured.

Your main argumentation still seems to be: Half of the icons used are similar, so the image is an exact copy.

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.

Now as to possible solutions. 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...!?

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.

1. For a start I did allready begin in Wikicommons to put the VA images in a separate directory. Did you allready notice?
2. What more would you like me to do? I can alter or remove those icons you mentioned in the VA Framework.

How is this for a start? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+

* Let us break this into two pieces and handle them separately. One is image copyright encumbrance. The other is article improvement.

* 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.

* Related to the article improvement please create a new talk section and we (and others) can discuss it separately.

* Does this sound reasonable? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+

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 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"? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it remains complicated given this last move. 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 VA Enterprise architecture. Then there is no need any more to delete those images, if they are only used to represent the VA EA...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss Image

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

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 shameful anyway.

Once there is concurrence on content, then we can discuss colors and fonts. ;) SunSw0rd (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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 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...?? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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 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 mean?

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 date.) Anyway.

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 reasonable?

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? SunSw0rd (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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 here...!?

To my knowledge copyright encumbrance doesn't just comes from an image that is too similar to extant copyrighted image. At least in Dutch law the key-word isn't "similar to" but "derived work". 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...!?

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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 now).

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:

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

• Contextual

1. (Why) Goal List – primary high level organization goals
2. (How) Process List – list of all known processes
3. (What) Material List – list of all known organizational entities
4. (Who) Organizational Unit & Role List – list of all organization units, sub-units, and identified roles
5. (Where) Geographical Locations List – locations important to organization; can be large and small
6. (When) Event List – list of triggers and cycles important to organization

• Conceptual

1. (Why) Goal Relationship Model – identifies hierarchy of goals that support primary goals
2. (How) Process Model – provides process descriptions, input processes, output processes
3. (What) Entity Relationship Model – identifies and describes the organizational materials and their relationships
4. (Who) Organizational Unit & Role Relationship Model – identifies enterprise roles and units and the relationships between them
5. (Where) Locations Model – identifies enterprise locations and the relationships between them
6. (When) Event Model – identifies and describes events and cycles related by time

• Logical

1. (Why) Rules Diagram – identifies and describes rules that apply constraints to processes and entities without regard to physical or technical implementation
2. (How) Process Diagram – identifies and describes process transitions expressed as verb-noun phrases without regard to physical or technical implementation
3. (What) Data Model Diagram – identifies and describes entities and their relationships without regard to physical or technical implementation
4. (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
5. (Where) Locations Diagram – identifies and describes locations used to access, manipulate, and transfer entities and processes without regard to physical or technical implementation
6. (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

• Physical

1. (Why) Rules Specification – expressed in a formal language; consists of rule name and structured logic to specify and test rule state
2. (How) Process Function Specification – expressed in a technology specific language, hierarchical process elements are related by process calls
3. (What) Data Entity Specification – expressed in a technology specific format; each entity is defined by name, description, and attributes; shows relationships
4. (Who) Role Specification – expresses roles performing work and workflow components at the work product detailed specification level
5. (Where) Location Specification – expresses the physical infrastructure components and their connections
6. (When) Event Specification – expresses transformations of event states of interest to the enterprise

• Detailed Representation

First version.

1. (Why) Rules detail
2. (How) Process detail
3. (What) Data detail
4. (Who) Role detail
5. (Where) Location detail
6. (When) Event detail

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

Ok thanks. I will see what I can do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I made of it for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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".

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".

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? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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..!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Now we can focus on article cleanup. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

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.

1. 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).
2. 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 Paul Harmon which has nothing to do with the statement.
3. Much of the whole Applications section might be better moved to Enterprise Architecture Framework.
4. The section under Views or Rows 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.

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. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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 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.-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• The Customization sub-section, which describes Zachman as applied to other frameworks, might logically be under the more general EAF.
• Ditto for Mapping other frameworks.

Looking at it, I change my mind about putting the "One-VA Enterprise Architecture" under EAF. 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 Zachman Framework and the EAF.

But you think about that and I will leave item #3 alone while you consider my suggestions. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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, DODAF and FEA, even started new articles about multiple frameworks as NIST, TEAF... and some more. There is definitely a relation between the ZF and these other frameworks, which is explained in reliable sources.

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 me?

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 explain, don't you think? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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 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...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to do that also unfortunately Wikipedia:No_original_research. SunSw0rd (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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 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. --Nickmalik (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro

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

1. I added a extra white line to improve online reading
2. 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 Wikipedia articles like this.
3. 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 : "The Zachman Framework™ Evolution". Zachman International. April, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). This should be explained much better. And I doubt this is that important to mention in the intro.

I will continue later on. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

An alternative for this second point could maybe be something "The Zachman framework is presented by Zachman as an ontology and not a methodology"...!? -- Mdd (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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 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? SunSw0rd (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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 The 6th row ...!? -- Mdd (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I have been thinking about the 2nd change. Technically, the Zachman framework is in fact not a methodology. It provides no techniques, no procedures, no methods. This distinguishes it from TOGAF for example which does 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. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. It is not so much that I oppose to calling the ZF "not a methodology". I oppose to calling te ZF an ontology. I have been studying ontologies for a while now, rewritting some of the Ontology (information science) article here... and I am not so sure the ZF fits the description of an ontology. A professor Jan Dietz in Delft 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 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. -- Mdd (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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". Wikipedia has two references, I think we are referencing the wrong one. One is Ontology from philosophy, the other is Ontology (information science) 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.

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 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.

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

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 used for enterprise architecture must be able to handle diagrams that exist outside of the framework. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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.

Phogg2 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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"? SunSw0rd (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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 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. Phogg2 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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..." SunSw0rd (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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 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".

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 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.

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 we settle on calling the ZF a classification scheme. (Note: scheme, not schema.) --Nickmalik (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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 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. Phogg2 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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 those 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 methodology -- thing about wikipedia is that multiple viewpoints are posted.) SunSw0rd (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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 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." --Nickmalik (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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 we know to be in error? I'm concerned for people who trust Wikipedia when they are trying to learn about the Framework. Phogg2 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It obviously 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 Mdd. 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 Mdd 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. SunSw0rd (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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 often called a framework. I think you could also call it a reference model... or what I have called here a view model.

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 Ontology (information science). -- Mdd (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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 not.

(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. --Nickmalik (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sessions citation in Intro

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quotes

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)

Lead sentence

The update of the lead sentence has been undone, see here, for the following reasons

1. The statement "The Zachman Framework is an Enterprise Ontology..." has no distinguished meaning, since the term Enterprise Ontology is not defined.
2. 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 Wikipedia articles should be build on reliable third party sources.
3. The article doesn't have to represent the latest news

-- Mdd (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And even before Jaap Schekkerman wrote the influential How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or choosing an enterprise architecture framework, (2003) the Zachman Framework has been explicitly classified as Enterprise Architecture Framework. -- Mdd (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Appendix: the above listing (see previous talk item) confirms that later sources did the same.

Coghillcort responded on User talk:Coghillcort with the argument:

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. The edits done reflect this facts. Please let me know the concern with these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coghillcort (talk • contribs) ...

-- Mdd (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. This article should not be inline with the latest available documents by the Zachman/FEAC Institute: As WP:SOURCE states: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...

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 The Zachman Framework is an enterprise ontology... -- Mdd (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I think User:Kku offered an acceptable (alternative) solution here. Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rule 7 is unclear

"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)