TOGAF Rome conference in Tweets

Posted on 29 April 2010 by

Tom G Posted in Business, Enterprise architecture — No Comments ↓

This is a fairly full collection of tweets over the past few days from the Open Group enterprise-architecture conference over the past few days – more detail on the conference-programme here. It lists most items posted under the #ogrome hashtag: I’ve left out a few RTs (re-tweets) and administrative items, but otherwise it’s pretty much all there.

There’s also a lot of it – at least a couple of hundred tweets – so it’s best to put in a ‘Read more…’ link at this point:

For simplicity, I’ve left out my own name on tweets that I posted (which seem to have been the majority for this conference – a slight disappointment, because it meant that there wasn’t that much of a backchannel). All posts other than my own are preceded with the respective person’s Twitter-ID in italics.

I’ve sorted the posts into the correct chronological order, and under headings for the respective conference-presentations. The ‘Other sessions’ headings relate to presentations that I didn’t manage to get to.

Intro/miscellaneous

stevenunn The Open Group Rome conference #ogrome kicks off to a full house, despite recent volcanic activity. Well done to everyone for getting here.
jdevoo: Follow The Open Group Conference Rome 2010 under #ogrome
a_josey New free EA WP from The Open Group released: World-Class Enterprise Architecture (reg’n requ’d) http://bit.ly/ahjc56 #ogrome
a_josey 2nd free WP from The Open Group: World-Class EA: Framework Guidance & TOGAF 9 Example (regn req’d) http://bit.ly/cLRozq #ogrome
a_josey TOGAF 9 Template Artifacts and Deliverables, Set 2 now available from The Open Group, http://bit.ly/9TGMQp #ogrome
a_josey The Open Group TOGAF White Papers repository has been updated today. Includes two new papers on EA adoption. http://bit.ly/PD5c6
a_josey Second White Paper on adoption of world-class EA published at provides guidance on how to implement TOGAF 9 http://bit.ly/cLRozq …
chrisdpotts: Will TOGAF be extended to include all the technologies a business uses, not just IT?

Terry Blevins (MITRE Corp): Air Force Architecting Concept of Operations – using architecture to support decision making

stevenunn Terry Blevins, of Mitre Corp, stresses the importance of having architects communicate with business at #ogrome.
Technodad Terry Blevins covers US Air Force Concept of Operation for architecture at #ogrome. About supporting decision making for mission/business.
stevenunn Terry Blevins tells #ogrome how the US Air Force uses architecture to support decision-making.
industryleaders Attending Air Force Architecting Concept Operations. EA Capabilities in action now live!!
stevenunn Critical capabilities for US Aur Force include effective decision-support, functioning governance, and optimal build capability.
Terry Blevins: USAF: architecture starts from values (not from IT or jargon!)
Terry Blevins USAF: no solution sits by itself – the really important part is the connections between architectures
Terry Blevins: architecture supports synthesis – and no, it’s not as simple as pushing a button! – governance is the key
Terry Blevins: the test of architecture-quality is whether it’s *usable* in practice – not just whether it’s in a standard form
theopengroup Terry Blevins concludes his presentation at #ogrome by urging the sharing of best practices in architecture through The Open Group.
Technodad Allen Brown and Terry Blevins discuss the role of the architect in supporting the warfighter. http://post.ly/dETe
Terry Blevins: anything you prescribe top-down for an architecture (e.g. segments) is likely to be wrong… must be emergent
trouxsoftware Great key to EA success. Blevins: “clear scope and purpose”

Leonardo Ramirez: EA Evolution from IT to Executive Board Conversation

Ramirez “Technology starts with really good business thinking” (i.e. not technology-first!) #entarch #soa
Ramirez: “SOA should not be a solution looking for an answer” #entarch #soa
Ramirez: “EA should properly be used to mean the architecture of an entire enterprise, not just its IT assets” #entarch
Ramirez: ‘IT’ projects are actually managed by business (as ‘owner’) rather than by IT
Ramirez: Obtain trust (via emotive speech): Think about what you want the technology to do for each audience and then validate it.
Ramirez: Audience did not care about (e.g.) use of process of agile development, as much as the result it could bring.
Ramirez: EA acts as mediator / translator between many different business groups (including IT)
Ramirez: EA provides end-to-end view, which includes IT metrics, business metrics, all people in the organisation
Ramirez: top-level business-results – from 1 country to 5, 1 business-unit to 8, roll-outs drive consistency across whole org
industryleaders Download the latest pdf presentation for EA evolution from IT to Execuitve board conversation from http://tinyurl.com/33lsxqf
industryleaders A pic from the Plenary made this morning http://leonardoramirez-zfwhc.posterous.com/

Jack Fujieda (RegIS Inc/Open Group Japan): 10 Commandments of Enterprise Architecture – For Whom the Bell Tolls? Value of EA to the CxO

Technodad Jack Fujieda presents Architecture 10 Commandments at. http://post.ly/dFcz
Fujieda: engineering happens *after* we understand the what and why of the context
mgl795: Some pictures of Fufieda-san’s session http://bit.ly/90u0cE

Chris Forde (Open Group): Enterprise Architecture – Getting Buy-in From the Business Line

Forde: if they don’t get it, they don’t get it – and if the decision is theirs, not yours, don’t annoy them by repeating yourself!
Forde: is what you’re doing sustainable? e.g. what happens when someone moves on? what happens when the org changes?
Forde: I try to leave the IT slant out of this: we talk about scale in terms of (different) people), not (identical) servers
Forde: who’s actually using what you do? no, who *really* uses it? if it’s not being used *now*, don’t spend big effort creating it
Forde: typical business view of time-to-success is 3-6 months (not classic-EA 2-3 years, but also not less)
Forde: remember that as an EA you *are* bringing to the (business) table a valuable body of knowledge – *you* need to value it too
Forde: everything you do in an IT context should always be traceable to a real, identifiable business outcome – no ivory tower!
Forde: every department in business is dysfunctional in some way – IT is no different (but probably no worse) than others in that..
Forde: there’s a lot of info in the TOGAF spec about soft-skills if you look around in there without IT-specific assumptions

Len Fehskens / Tom Graves / Walter Stahlecker: ‘Extending EA to the Enterprise’ joint session

Len Fehskens: (asking if we’ve read certain EA classics) “you’re all woefully ignorant, historically – not that that matters” 🙂
presentation ‘Architecture on purpose’ for TOGAF Rome #entarch went well, will clean-up and post on Slideshare tomorrow
‘Enterprise-architecture on purpose’ – my slides from TOGAF Rome are now up on Slideshare http://bit.ly/9A0Uvd #entarch #bizarch
Stahlecker: “enterprise architeture is the union of all architectures in an enterprise”
Stahlecker: “EA has no a priori architectural hierarchy, alignments are what create and maintain an architectural hierarchy”
Stahlecker: for TOGAF: “needed: alignment among concerns via ‘boundaryless architecture-information flow'”
Stahlecker: business-architecture is the ‘chemistry’ – how the intended value, defined by stakeholders, are derived from the assets

Other sessions

trouxsoftware Lambert: Capability planning is about business outcomes.
harmenberg meeting on TOGAF tool certification at
harmenberg useful meeting on TOGAF tool certification at; interesting point: should it be primarily specification based or use case based?

Richard Sawhney (Forrester): ‘Evolving Traditional [IT] Architecture to Business-Centric Architecture’

sebastian_zeeb Richard Sawhney (Forrester) talks about next gerenration EA @ Opengroup Conferenc in Rome
Sawhney: emphasis on convrsations, agility, value-driven (inc. non-monetary), arch. as coaching, metrics on metrics not compliance
Sawhney: “it’s great that we’ve got this new thing called business-architecture” – this is new???
harmenberg @tetradian if you live in the IT-world, business might seem new to you 🙂
Sahwney: barely a third of orgs have implemented any real level of business-architecture (only 2% ‘nearly all we need’) #bizarch
Sawhney: “‘business capability map’ model of capabilities with IT associated with them” – where do we capture non-IT?!?
Sawhney: billed as moving beyond IT-centrism, but ‘business-architecture’ is same old ‘everything not-IT that might impact on IT’..?
Sawhney: capabilities provide a ‘Rosetta stone’ for business-IT communication – is best level of granularity
Sawhney: (‘business capability map’ is similar to what others would describe as a Functional Business Model – i.e tiered services)
sebastian_zeeb According to Forrester Capability maps are a good way to align business needs to existing IT capabiliies #eacom
trouxsoftware Richard Sawhney of Forrester: EA 2.0 is about business outcomes.
Sawhney: (interesting to see this viewed as ‘new’ – all of this we we did in live practice at AusPost 6+ years ago…)
industryleaders Great presentation from forrester at Open Group Rome Conference : Create and Validate Business View First
Sawhney: “architecture is more about listening than talking” – agree (though I admit I’m not good enough at it yet… 🙁 🙂 )
Sawhney: ‘business skills’ are essential – being able to talk in the language of business – communication skills – avoid jargon
Sawhney: (IT-)EA needs to develop collaboration-guidelines to assist business to make best/wisest use of cloud
thobitz Another analyst who thinks that processes are just about fine-granular process steps, and therefore we need – “capabilities”
Sawhney / Allen: EA needs to be presented as a business-level strategic capability, not an IT-capability
thobitz Apparently he is also not sure whether it should be “capability” or “function” – uses the terms interchangably in the discussion
sailesh_panchal Richard Sawhney of Forrester: EA 2.0 is about business outcomes. /via @trouxsoftware Well duh!

Erik Proper (CapGemini Academy): Architectures for Service Innovation

Erik Proper: Architectures for Service Innovation – calling for case-studies in this area
Proper: from product to service; monolithic orgs to networked enterprise; new business initiatives times down from months to days
Proper: value web – not a simple value chain, is difficult now to determine direction; value-transforms often indirect/non-linear
Proper: business-services / business-service innovation not yet gain much attention, yet business drives needs for software services
Proper: architecture as a means to steer innovation (for business and/or IT etc) – service innovation is/cause enterprise-transforms
Proper: #entarch provides a more concrete description of what strategy needs for implementation (hence EA as governance)
Proper: (some nice crosslinks between EA-as-governance, de Leeuw on governance, and Stafford Beer on viable-systems)
Proper: service innovation is about the whole enterprise, not just IT
(re Proper) RT @SAlhir: RT @GrahamHill: RT @adfig: Last issue of ‘Service Science’ just out. http://bit.ly/cGIJv0 #servicedesign
gollwitzera Erik provided interesting cross link to research activity – see http://service-science.info/
Proper: recommends S2IP (sustainable services), TOGAF ADM (but *not* fixed IT-centric scope), VPEC-T (see @taotwit, @5Di), TRIZ
Proper: use design-science (create something, trial it, evaluate, iterate) as a way to enhance TOGAF in live practice
Proper: looking for #entarch case-studies for research @erikproper
Proper: difference b/w ‘service’ and ‘capability’: capability implies ability to *execute* a service
jdevoo @erikproper @tetradian What is the role of business schools in educating on EA? E.g. http://bit.ly/aVV2pg

Mike Rollings (Burton Group): Changing the Conversation – Becoming Business Relevant by Redefining Your Focus

Rollings: quotes Gary Hamel and Shoshana Zuboff on drivers for overall rethink of management – making EA relevant in that shift
Rollings: Hamel: “removing the pathology of the management hierarchy” – becoming social-systems architects, human-centric
Rollings: Zuboff “There is no detailed map of the territory ahead – you are the mapmaker” – design-thinking, again human-centric
harmenberg Mike Rollings at: it’s good to see someone with presentation capabilities…
Rollings: th term ‘enterprise architecture’ does’t describe complexity behind it – we need to describe in business language not EA’s
Rollings: ‘enterprise architects’ are not the only ones doing EA-type work – our role is not to teach EA but help others *apply* it
CH_FEDARCH Burton Group Speaker says, architects need to change not only their language but their behavior to be more relevant to their org
Rollings: EA’s application should increase the awareness of dependencies, implications and constraints for decision-making
Rollings: most people do not care what ‘EA’ is, what they care about is the value gained from applying it
erikproper @tetradian Meanwhile, EA is still positioned subordinate to the CIO …
Rollings: integration not about EA (for its own sake) it’s about how well we connect with the other disciplines – watch for friction
Rollings: what are others’ roadblocks / blindspots to making better decisions – EA should illuminate range of perspectives context
Rollings: relevance: “examine everything from the context of another individual” – what is the problem that they’re experiencing?
Rollings: collaboration “develop a shared context from a fabric of ideas” – start from the intended outcomes, dynamic, opportunity
Rollings: “change the focus from the institution to the individual” – orgs are made up of unique people with unique views/needs
Rollings: change EA behaviour: individual > initiate, collaboration > engage, relevance > empathize, perspective > visualise
overall, a very useful / expressive / *relevant* presentation from Mike Rollings – recommended
Rollings: need to make the elements of EA more approachable, change the discussion to serve and to become more business-relevant
Rollings: a coming split between IT people who are running things vs those who focus on helping business improve/extend capabilities
Rollings: “the point is that ya gotta learn the business!” – strongly agree
mikerollings RT @tetradian: Rollings: “the point is that ya gotta learn the business!” – strongly agree #burtongroup #gartnerea
trouxsoftware Rollins: BPM teams separate from EA. Do not think that they are doing EA. Similar to how many others pursue SOA. #entarch
process2go RT @tetradian Rollings: most people don’t care what ‘EA’ is, they care about the value gained from applying it similar for #BPM
harmenberg Mike Rollings at: ‘language and communication are at the heart of many problems.’ A case for ArchiMate I would say!
bergmart @harmenberg I disagree with you. ArchiMate is for enterprise IT architecture not for enterprise business architecture.
harmenberg @bergmart yes, we do disagree. There is more in BA than in ArchiMate, but ArchiMate is more than enterprise IT architecture
erikproper @harmenberg Indeed. ArchiMate is more than EntWide IT architecture, but we are missing relevant aspects. Let’s clarify what we mis!
marcostong17 Proper: mentioned 3 levels of capabilities for service innovation. And service innovation is or cause enterprise transformation.#ogrome

Len Fehskens (Open Group): Business Architecture – Just Another IT-Centric Idea?

Len Fehskens session: Is ‘business-architecture’ just another IT-centric idea?
ARSzakal The practice of Business Architecture is a discipline of EA. Architects who practice BA, EA and EITA apply all of these disciplines.
ARSzakal Ok so we don’t really have a defacto industry agreement on what it means to be a business architect.
ARSzakal Show me someone who suggests they only practice EA and not EITA or BA and not EA and I’ll introduce you to the unemployed.
ARSzakal You almost never see a real productive archtiect only focus on one architectural discipline.
omkhar RT @ARSzakal: Would you create a business architecture and never create the supporting IT architecture? I think not. // agreed
Fehskens: IT centric defn of ‘business-architecture’ is probly OK is we’re honest about it, though it’s only useful to the IT domain
Fehskens: it would be helpful to remember to stop partitioning the world into ‘the IT’ vs ‘the business’
mikerollings Len Fehskens the separation of IT and the Business causes bias and is an outdated idea – I couldn’t agree more
industryleaders The main conclusion is that EA must be business relevant
Fehskens: ‘the business’ really deserves a more thoughtful characterisation than ‘whatever isn’t IT’
Fehskens: the ‘siren song’ of “if the business had an architecture it would be easier for the IT architecture to align with it”…
sebastian_zeeb Business meets Architecture – Mind the Gap. The Lever for Integration of Processes and IT. http://bit.ly/abc90a #eacom
Fehskens: IT-centric version of ‘business architecture’ hijacks the term for another needed concept of ‘architecture of business’
Fehskens: “IT is a function; ‘the business’ is not” – very important distinction
ARSzakal Would you create a business architecture and never create the supporting IT architecture? I think not.
Fehskens: ‘naming-inflation’ – “naming something this way does not “automagically” realize our aspirations” 🙂
trouxsoftware Fehskens: Today, “enterprise architecture” is routinely used to mean “enterprise IT architecture” #entarch
Fehskens: names set expectations – we need to be more rigorous about naming (he presents some *very* useful rigour/syntax etc)
ARSzakal Discord between business and IT results from our separation of the management of the business function and IT operations.
Fehskens: IT-centric term ‘business architecture’ is convergence of several bad habits of enterprise IT-architects: need to fix this
mikerollings Allen Brown “if I use the word ‘enterprise’ outside the Open Group crowd, they think I am talking about Star Trek”
ARSzakal Business Architecture is the business strategy, mission and planning – this evolves in realtime and informs the EITA.
mikerollings EA as a profession: too broad of a designation. Current certification of someone as an ‘EA’ demands the question “what kind?”
mikerollings EA as a profession also misses that many outside IT do planning, optimization, and design without calling it ‘EA’ #gartnerea
BurtonGroupIT Great conversations happening at Open Group Conference Rome and Burton Group’s @mikerollings #burtongroup #gartnerea

David Potter (Quantum Lifecycle Management spotlight)

Quantum Lifecycle Management: open, trusted whole-of-life lifecycle mgmt for trillions of objects in ‘internet of things’
omkhar QLM – Quantum Lifecycle Management is the next leap beyond Product Lifecycle Management
Technodad David Potter introduces Quantum Lifecycle Management group @ – sharing lifecycle info for “Internet of things” http://post.ly/dWez
industryleaders At Quantum Lifecycle Management Meeting going beyond PLM
Technodad Jacopo Cassina at #QLM meeting at : how to replicate the “village cobbler” experience across design, supply and service chains

Sebastian Zeeb (Detecon International GmbH): The Business Value of Information – Information Architecture Case Study Telecommunication

Zeeb: “what’s the use of a common language if nobody wants to talk?”
Zeeb: “Information need from today’s business require a holistic approach to architecture” – strongly agree
Zeeb: (exactly what it says – is a detailed case-study for Enterprise Information Management – very useful if you need case-studies)
5Di RT @tetradian: Zeeb: “what’s the use of a common language if nobody wants to talk?” > why ‘Values’ and ‘Trust’ are important #vpect
StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb “holistic approach to architecture” Do you agree this approach is outside IT? Ought to define need. @tetradian
StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb In practice we see big differences between information and IT professionals. Like demand versus supply. @tetradian
StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb Ah, you’re talking supplyside Information Architecture. Then what do you mean by holistic?
StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb Only reason for demand for IT is information. Conceptually this demand must be holistic. Good to see holistic supply

Robin Meehan (Smart421): Producing Metrics to Measure Strategy-Execution Alignment During ADM Phase E / F

Meehan: “how do we know how well this project portfolio moves us towards the business vision?” – hence need for metrics
Meehan: “Is the target to have 100% alignment? Not necessarily … stop once you’ve got value from the process” – pragmatics
Meehan: emphasis on alignment to intended *execution* – alignment to strategy should have been dealt with in previous ADM phases
Meehan: “if there is no traceable ‘business value’ [in a project or its execution], then why are we doing it?” – stop ‘pet-projects’
Meehan: (runs a demonstration inside Sparx Enterprise Architect) – good illustration shows where an objective has no IT support etc
Meehan: if a strategy has no change-project to implement it, it ain’t going to happen…
Meehan: “[metrics will show that] some projects have no discernable relationship to strategy” – often points to tricky politics
Meehan: provides a means to test whether strategy is deliverable (or that anyone is actually delivering it) – enforces SMART checks
Meehan: a lot of the issues are from the strategy side (e.g. implicit, too woolly, ‘pet project’) rather than on the project-side
Meehan: important to have an ‘innovation-strategy’ item to provide traceability for innovation-projects, don’t hide as ‘pet project’
Meehan: “not all traceability relationships are equal, not all projects are considered equal” – e.g. 1-5 scale for opportunity-cost
gfriend Important reminder! RT @tetradian: Meehan: if a strategy has no change-project to implement it, it ain’t going to happen…

Mamdouh Ibrahim / Kevin Daley (IBM) session: Actionable Business Architecture

Mamdouh Ibrahim / Kevin Daley
Daley: “is it ‘IT/business alignment’, or ‘IT/business convergence’?” – explicitly places ‘business-architecture’ as part of IT…
Daley/IBM: (personally I *really* strongly disagree with his very IT-oriented base-assumptions here, but that’s just my opinion…)
Daley: “split the business conceptually into ‘Strategy & Transformation’ and ‘Operations'” – because they have different worldviews
Ibrahim (IBM): “addressing #bizarch only as a piece of traditional ([IT-centric) #entarch can be problematic”
Ibrahim: if bizarch is seen only as IT, business-stakeholders won’t/don’t participate – also who owns the bizarch?
Ibrahim: use-cases are the best mechanism to capture *systems* reqmts, but may not be suitable to capture *enterprise* reqmts
Ibrahim: incorporating bizarch as a critical and business-relevant component of entarch requires a new perspective
Ibrahim: actionable business architecture may be used/usable for understanding of business on its own [e.g. without assuming IT]
Daley: “information technology has become almost inseparable from the business itself” – [oh no, not again… rampant IT-centrism]
Daley: [okay, this is IBM selling tools, but this is exactly what *not* to do with business-architectures… e.g. IT-driven BPR/BPM]
Daley: [what is ‘actionable business architecture’? seems to be ‘whatever bizarch can be implemented by IBM automated tools’???]
Daley/Ibrahim: [an odd presentation – half extreme IT-centrism, half real awareness of bizarch beyond IT]

Salah Musa (Object Computing International): ‘The “Business” in Enterprise Architecture – The Business Value’

Musa: entarch *must* deliver *demonstrable* business-value – keyword here is ‘demonstrable’ (and “perception is reality”)
Musa: “is the reason why we need ‘IT/business alignment’ because IT is more broken than any other function within the business?”
Musa: if IT focus only on cutting costs, can only save a few million; but if focus on creating value, can return far far more
Musa: [EA defined as a subset of IT – again… how many more years before the discipline can finally break free of this mistake??]
Musa: “reality, awareness and perceptions are completely different from each other” – yes, that’s important, esp. for #entarch
Musa: “bizarch building blocks are data, people, function and rules organised by location and timing” [yes, *people*, not just IT]
Musa: “facilitate change [with] more complete and accurate info for line managers etc to make decisions” [yes, decision-support]
Musa: “give custodianship of EA to the corporate enterprise! but are they interested, and how?” – good questions

Other sessions

harta75 Interesting SOA discussion about services and the importance of keeping the service contract stable @#ogrome
industryleaders Attending to emergence of industry reference architectures in financial markets
omkhar Very interesting presentation on Cloud Computing ROI by Mark Skilton
chrisjharding @omkhar We will build on this in the meeting on Business Architecture for Cloud Services at 9:00 tomorrow
rmeehan Just posted Open Group Rome 2010 day 1 blog – http://smart421.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/open-group-conference-rome-2010-day-1-blog/
omkhar At a very interesting Realtime / embedded systems group talk.
harmenberg ArchiMate Forum meeting at: discussing steps to take and futher releases of ArchiMate

Bob Weisman: ‘Using TOGAF 9 in Conjunction with Other Frameworks on Emergency Management Systems’

Weisman: Web 2.0 is collaboration, it’s not about technology
Weisman: need a unified architecture in the collaboration environment [architecture is *more* important in agile response, not less]
Weisman: a key problem is culture: creating willngness to share, then technology (capability to share), policy (rules for sharing)
Weisman: managing expectations – don’t promise what you can’t deliver – interoperability is much trickier than it looks
Weisman: pre-planning on governance and resources provides an architecture for the architecture – test in e.g. live simulation
Weisman: a lot of architectures fail because of implementation issues around acquisition – if you can’t get it you can’t build it!
Weisman: “pick the content metamodel” – too many to choose from? (MODAF/OMG UPDM etc etc) but all implementable, all maintained
Weisman: [my own opinion: this is _much_ more real-world than the finance/insurance etc models we usually see for TOGAF etc]
Weisman: for interoperability, re-use and extend existing models (incl. arch. models), don’t create new ones w/o v.good reason
CH_FEDARCH @tetradian I agree, government cases are *real world* and are insightful – especially for other gvmt guys…
Weisman: (provides a crossmap between TOGAF phases, DODAF deliverables, UML etc models to ‘get everyone on same page’)
Weisman: people talk about interoperability, but as soon as they have to *do* it, they tend to back away…
Weisman: capability: ability of a person, process or organisation to provide business value
Weisman: models for interoperability for emergency-response will be available publicly in the fairly near future

Sanda Morar (Cognizant): ‘Integrating TOGAF Architecture Development Method with Other Enterprise-wide Processes’

Morar: TOGAF spec says that “in all cases” adaptation will be required – ie. the ‘standard’ is not an out-of-the-box standard
Morar: a lot of talk about mapping (between TOGAF and other frameworks), but info was not that much actual help in integrating them
Morar: (appears to be a crossmapping of TOGAF phases with Zachman layers – row-1 to row-5? struggling with proprietary IP again..)
Morar: diagram suggests that TOGAF metamodel needs entities for lifecycle, technical constraint – good point
Morar: (focus of their MLR model is requirements rather than architecture as such, but there is a useful crossmap between them)
Morar: [my opinion: this is again showing the fundamental problem with TOGAF’s fixed IT-specific B/C/D scope – ADM needs open scope]
Morar: crossmap to TOGAF metamodel provides a very valuable crosscheck – gaps in their own model “jump out” from the comparison

Other sessions

omkhar My Security in the Cloud presentation begins at 4pm local
jim_hietala Listening to @omkhar and Stuart Boardman describe great progress on a cloud security reference architecture at
harmenberg Useful meeting of ArchiMate Forum at, with a number of concrete steps to take the coming month(s).
harmenberg Alexander den Hartog (Boskalis) presents on the use of ArchiMate at Boskalis.
harta75 Had a lot of questions about use of Archimate in Boskalis at. Always good to have discussions after a presentation.
rmeehan Blog from Open Group Rome 2010 day 2 posted http://smart421.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/open-group-conference-rome-2010-day-2-blog/
rmeehan Good event – well done to Open Group organisers. Any event with wine at lunch time every day has got to be good :o)