Every Viewpoint Has to Be Distinct - Say “Goodbye” to the TRAK CVp-02 Concept Viewpoint
by Nic Plum on Sunday 08 April, 2012 - 12:42 GMT
Posted in Architecture Framework • TRAK
Every viewpoint in TRAK is a specification for an architecture description view. In accordance with ISO/IEC 42010 each address one or more typical concerns using a combination of tuples (stereotype - relationship - stereotype combination taken from the TRAK metamodel). The tuples have therefore to contain the right types and relationships to address the concern and the concerns (and therefore the tuple sets) must be distinct from those addressed by other viewpoints. This keeps clear water between viewpoints and it means that the number of viewpoints needed is kept to a minimum because they aren’t driven by domain or application of viewpoints.
What then of the TRAK CVp-02 Concept Viewpoint? This is currently defined as answering concerns has the concept purpose been identified?
and How is it seen as being used?
and the tuples as:
Expected to be largely textual and scenario based but with use of other concept perspective architecture views to illustrate, expand, define.The set of tuples will be those from the mandatory sets of the concept perspective views used against CVp-01, CVp-03, CVp-04, CVp-05 and CVp-06.The selection of concept views used to illustrate the scenarios is left to the architect.
from TRAK. Enterprise Architecture Framework Viewpoints. 2nd October 2011
This isn’t good enough. None of this needs anything which isn’t already provided by one or more of the other viewpoints in the TRAK Concept Perspective. The purpose of a concept is embodied through its relationships with the solution or potential solutions that realise it and its relationship with the enterprise and the enterprise goals. The content of a concept is already covered by existing viewpoints and there is nothing that makes this viewpoint distinct from any others. Historically it was an analogue of the MODAF OV-1 which included a high level graphic and a textual version used to present ideas to senior management in an easy to digest form:
The OV-1a provides a graphical executive summary of the architectural endeavour, which describes the interactions between the subject architecture and its environment, and between the architecture and external systems. A textual description accompanying the graphic is essential, with labels on the graphic and a detailed description in the OV-1b. Graphics alone are not sufficient for capturing the necessary architecture data.
The purpose of OV-1a is to provide a quick, high-level description of the business objective that the architecture is addressing, and how that objective might be achieved. An OV-1a can be used to orient and focus detailed discussions. Its main utility is to communicate the purpose of the architecture to non-technical, high-level decision makers.
from The MODAF Operational Viewpoint. 26th April 2010
.
In TRAK any view can be presented using graphical elements as long as the type of object is shown and with simple text labels on relationships it is easy to produce something that most people can simply read in a natural way so the presentation is never a justification for a separate viewpoint.
On the face of it there is no good reason for keeping this viewpoint and the best thing is to remove it. The recommendation has been made as a change request (#3475115) and unless anyone makes a good reason to keep it the sentence will soon be carried out ....
External Links
- Sourceforge. TRAK Viewpoints. Feature Request. #3475115. CVp-02 Concept Viewpoint Not Unique - Remove?
- MODAF. Operational View Viewpoint.
- TRAK. Enterprise Architecture Framework Viewpoints. 2nd October 2011.
Comments
Logged-in site members can receive notifications of comments made on this article.
Related Articles
Linked directly:
Sharing tags:
- Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (67% )
- Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (67% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (33% )
- Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (33% )
- What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (33% )
« Previous TRAK Article Published by The Institution of Engineers (Singapore) Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? Next »