Talk:Zachman Framework/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The illustration of the Zachman Framework

In the past two months I am trying to find a better illustration of the Zachman Framework. I kept having the feeling the existing illustration could be improved. There existed those four:

1. Zfdata
2. Zfprocess.
3. ZF What column Data example.
4. ZachmanFramework6

So I have been searching for alternatives and I created four alternatives.

5. Zachman Framework Rows (From a PD source)
6. Zachman Framework Basics (Based on nr 4)
7. Zachman Framework. (From this 4 October 2005 article)
8. Zachman Framework Detailed. (Combination nr 6 and 7)

An other alternative is to added an image of an application of the Zachman Framework.

9. TEAF Matrix of Views and Perspectives.
10. Framework for EA Direction, Description, and Accomplishment Overview.
11. TEAF Products.
12. TEAF Work Products for EA Direction, Description, and Accomplishment.

In search for a better illustration of the Zachman Framework I started to wonder, not only what the real Zachman Framework was like, but if there even existed one Zachman Framework. I started wondering if the Zachman Framework has become a type of diagram, instead of one image?

After some checking sources it started to seem as if there are numerous types of the Zachman Framework. I will give some examples. There are at least five versions by Zachman:

1. The 1987 version with three columns by Zachman (see here Fig 2 p.285), which I think is made black.

2. The 1992 version of the 1987 version by Zachman and J.F. Sowa ( see here Fig 1 p.593), which in details differs from the 1987 version

3. The 1992 version of the 1987 version by Zachman and J.F. Sowa ( see here Fig 6 p.600-601), the six-column ISA framework

4. The 2005 Enterprise Architecture, A Framework, (see here Fig 4)

5. The 2008 The Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition, (see here)

There are also all kinds of similar Zachman Framework representations:

6. James McGovern, Scott W. Ambler et al. (2003) in the "A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture" p. 127 are given an example instance of the Zachman Framework with 5 rows and 6 columns

7. Marc Lankhorst in "Enterprise Architecture at Work" on page 24 gives an image of "The Zachman Framework (Zachman 1987)": A 5 rows and 6 column matrix with the cells empty (like image 6, above)

8. William H. Inmon (2005). "Building the Data Warehouse", on page 155: A 6 rows and 6 column matrix with the cells empty (like image 6, above)

9. "The Zachman Framework: An Introduction" by David C. Hay. Published: June 1, 1997, see here: A 6 rows and 6 column matrix with the cells with text (like image 7, above)

10. A modified 1987 Framework by Paul Harmon (2003) in "Business Process Change" page 319: A 6 rows and 3 column matrix with the cells with text (like image 7 above (in half))

Now this is only a start. My first conclusion here is that there are multiple versions of the Zachman Framework by Zachman and by others. This is why I also think we could and should use multiple images to illustrate this article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcel, I have received this note from Zachman International regarding the Veteran's Affairs image of the "Zachman Framework" that you posted: "These are extracts from the ORIGINAL Framework not done by us nor certified by us. It would not be a certified elaboration of the published Framework standards. It was done by someone in Veteran's Affairs for their internal use. It does not accurately represent the concepts as we presently understand them."

Recommend you remove the image. Phogg2 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your missing the point I am trying to make here. Your request contrasts the way I have learned to work in Wikipedia and illustrate articles. I will try to explain:

Illustrations made by federal government employees and published on the web by federal governments are in the public domain, and become uploaded and used in Wikipedia.
It seems to me the Veteran's Affairs ilustration is like similar Zachman Framework representations in the scientific books (for example the five I listed above (see image), an interpretation of the Zachman Framework. These are no exact copies because otherwise they would violate copyright on the original.
In Wikipedia we are also stimulated to create original images ourselves to illustrate our articles, because we don't want to violate copyright. We don't work with certification as far as I know.

An other point I have made clear that there isn't one exact Zachmnan Framework. It has evolved into a concept which has several representations. As explained in earlier discussions on this talk page, all Wikipedia articles never represent only the original version of any concept by the original creator. We represent the coverage of the concept in notable sources.

In the notable sources there are all kinds of illustrations of the Zachman Framework: There are multiple versions by Zachman; There are multiple interpretations; and there are also multiple modified Frameworks. This article is trying to be a representation of this coverage. The best way to represent this article is with multiple images.

I fully admit there is a certified vision on the form, exact text and philosophy of the Zachman Framework, by John Zachman and his companies. With a lot of concepts there is such an "original version" by the "original creator". But Wikipedia articles don't limit their scope to these original versions. In fact, if there is only such an original version, which is the case with most new scientific concept, we don't even represent these concepts in Wikipedia. We start to consider concepts notable and if it has sever coverage in reliable third party reliable sources.

Now I wonder if you and Zachman consider all these coverage of the Zachman Framework by third party sources as being copyright violantions. I can't image you do, but it almost seems like it...!?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I am an advocate of using an image of the Zachman Framework in the article. In fact, it took me some time to get the one that is posted towards the end of the article accepted. Also, I feel that a proper encyclopaedic treatment of this subject should include, with permission by the copyright owner, an image of the original (Version 1) framework as well as an image of the current (Version 2) framework, or standards as it is now known. There should also be an explanation of the changes from the original to the present version. As it stands now, the article only talks about the concepts behind the original version and the only way to learn about Version 2 is by going to the Zachman International website. I have approached Zachman International with the idea of posting small images (not suitable for printing, perhaps) of both official versions, along with an explanation of and rationale for the changes.

I am not in agreement with the insertion of variations of the framework, especially when they include titles of rows and columns that Zachman hasn't used. In fact, those that change the names are in violation of Rule 6 (see the article). I feel the only reason that they might be posted is to illustrate examples of what not to do.

I think the VA image should be removed toute de suite. In the meantime, I expect to hear back from Zachman shortly regarding my proposal to use the official versions with additional info about Version 2, etc. Phogg2 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me we have a different focuss here, and different priorities. You are trying to represent the "official" Zachman framework and the "official" contemporary vision of Zachman on the framework. I admitt you made mayor contributions to the article (last Feb 2008 see here and from March to Sept 2008 see here, most of it was your work) to get these official framework and Zachmans corrent vision expressed. In the light of this efforts, I guess for you, only an illustration of the official Framework is acceptable.

My focuss is more towards the original presentation of the Zachman Framework, the historic importance of this work, it's further development, and most of all the spin off of this concept. These aspects are now only stipulated in the article, but this is something I want to express. This is about:

The emerge of similar modified frameworks in the theory, see fig 13.
The emerge of similar modified frameworks as building blocks in particular enterprise architectures. For example these four:

14. C4ISR AE, 1997.
15. DOE AE, 1998.
16. TEAF Matrix, 2000.
17. DODAF, 2003.

And a new use of the Zachman Framework as a reference model in other Architectures, see for example these four:

18. DoDAF Support to the Builder
19. DoDAF Support to the Contractor
20. DoDAF Support to the Designer
21. DoDAF Support to the Owner

These are the thing I want to express much more in the current article here. The modified VA Framework fits this plan.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, yes I do think the official versions would be ideal. In the absence of approval for including them, at least some indication of the official version without changing the names of the rows and columns, which Zachman allowed, is the next best thing.

The modified versions don't have a place in an article about the Zachman Framework, unless perhaps you want to use them illustrate a section on how organizations have adapted it for their own purpose, but then we are straying from the pure subject of the Zachman Framework.

I am more adamant about not using any adapted framework to describe the Zachman Framework. Phogg2 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I have experienced your proposal is against Wikipedia policy. This policy more or less:

Accepts (most) original illustrations as copyrighted
Discourages us to use fair use illustrations of these original images.
Stimulates us to create own original illustrations of existing ideas and theories

This means that similair articles in Wikipedia mostly are illustrated with other illustrations of the idea and not with originals.

4. Illustration of the Zachman Framework by Phogg2

Also I don't consider the illustration you made an original Zachman Framework. This is also just an other illustration of the Zachman Framework, a modified version in your words. Personally I think that your illustration, in compare to other illustrations (see figure 13 above) is a confusing one. The Zachman Framework is a matrix, in which each cell has a unique content. Your image has an extra layer, which in first sight desturbs this idea. This is the reason I started searching for an other illustration here in the first place.

My priority here would be to rewrite the article and to replace your illustration with a less confusing one.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, I think you would agree that the ideal situation would be to use the official original versions of the Zachman Framework images in an encylopaedic treatment of the subject. Since these images are copyrighted, and since the owner of the copyright has so far not given his permission to use them, we obviously have to come up with something that is less than ideal. (I'm still waiting for a response to my request to Zachman, by the way.)

If we use someone's adaptation of the Zachman Framework, where they have changed the names of the rows and columns, we run into three problems, as I see it. First, an adaptation of the Zachman Framework where the names of any of the rows and columns have been changed is no longer the Zachman Framework. It would be as if someone changed the names of parts of the Periodic Table of Elements, or changed the names of the categories in the Dewey Decimal System, or changed the names in Linnaeus' biology classification system, etc. It just shouldn't be done.

Second, if we publish Zachman's rules for the original framework, Rule 6 says not to change the names of the rows and columns. It doesn't seem appropriate to me to include an example of an image of the framework that doesn't comply with that rule.

Third, Zachman himself hasn't wanted the official versions to be included in Wikipedia. Incorrectly labelled variations makes matters worse, in my opinion.

With regards to the image that I posted, I'm sorry you found it to be confusing. Yours is the only negative reaction I have received about it. I have in fact received a few positive reactions, including one from a long time EA practioner who told me she intended to use it in her presentations. In any event, the image is, admittedly, very much a compromise. I kept to the rule of not changing the names of the rows and columns and provided some information about the cells in each row, and pointing to where a more detailed treatment (including the official version of the poster) can be found. It isn't ideal, but it was acceptable to Zachman.

We have another dilemma of sorts in that the original Zachman Framework is no longer taught by Zachman himself. The framework has evolved to the new Zachman Framework Standards (beginning in 2005) with a significantly different and more detailed approach. As I said before, I think we should restructure the article to reflect the historical beginings of the framework, as illustrated by the original image, and include how the concepts have evolved to its present form. Phogg2 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Phogg2, the general policy in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Images, is to create our own unique images ourselves and share them under a creative commons licence. The illustrations in Wikipedia used are hardly ever an original versions and practically never an official original version. These are almost always copyrighted, and can only be used under fair use conditions. But this is something we try to avoid. So most articles use an abstract illustration of the original. I wonder if you are even aware of this policy? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't be so persistent to get ride of this for Wikipedia normal type of illustration. And don't respond to all suggestions I make here. It seems this discussion is one big miscommunication...!?

So my ideal is not one official original versions, but a collection of images illustration different aspects of the Zachman Framework, its development and its applications.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, yes I am aware of the Wikipedia policy concerning images. I found out about it when I created my own image of the Zachman Framework.

In the absence of posting the official version, we of course can make one up, but the point I feel is necessary to keep making is that when we do we must not change the names of the rows and columns of the framework (like the VA one that you posted).

I have had some initial feedback from Zachman from my sugestion described above. It is being discussed. Hope to have some more info to pass along later. Phogg2 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you realy understand the Wikipedia policy. To create our own unique images ourselves under a creative commons licence, here means make an abstraction of the existing illustrations in the field. You are not allowed to just copying the names of the rows and columns of any framework, but you have to give an interpretation. In the end the abstraction will always have multiple differences with the original. And we both agree the VA illustration has these multiple differences.

Also I don't think the official version is superior to other illustrations. like the VA abstract representation. They are just different. I do think it is most important to explain the difference, like I did in the subscript of the image.

Also I am not that interested in the current original version, but more in the original version of the framework which was presented in 1987. I don't know if you noticed, but this original in the current online available pdf file, see here on page 285, that original is almost black. I don't know if they did this on purpose, but I think that is very disturbing. Next time you talk to Zachman maybe you can ask him if he can get that pdf file representation improved.

If you get permission to use that original version, I will give you all the support. Untill then an abstraction will do.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, it is my understanding that an encyclopaedic article about any subject should be as objective as possible. When you change the name of a row in the Zachman Framework, because it is your interpretation of what it should be versus what what is really is, you are not conforming to the principle of objectivity. In my opinion, an abstraction of the Zachman Framework poster would be one where you leave out details from the original, but the details that you leave in, such as the names of the rows and columns, are not altered. If you alter such things, it can't be said to be an abstraction of the real thing, it is an interpretation according to a bias, which is something to be avoided, methinks, even if you think your interpretation is better than the original.

I think I have a clean copy of the diagram in the IBM journal that you referred to. I'm on the road at the moment, but I'll check later. Are you thinking about posting it? Phogg2 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your last question about posting it? I noticed some weeks ago that there is a clean copy of that original in the Zachman's 1992 articles, see here on page 593. But this doesn't change the fact, that the 1987 article is confusing because of that black page. I have retrieved that article several times before, and didn't understand at all what kind of Zachman Framework he presented there and how this relates to the current official version. That is all very confusing, if you understand what I mean...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, I don't know why he PDF file on the IBM site is so poor. I just checked my copy and it is nice and clear, and in colour.Phogg2 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The illustration of the original Zachman Framework

thumb|22. Screenshot 1987 [http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/263/ibmsj2603E.pdf IBM file]

Sorry, are we talking about the same thing. This is a screenshot of the page 285-286 as I see it, when I download the article at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/263/ibmsj2603E.pdf. With your copy, you mean the original on paper?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thumb|23. from IBM Article. Yes, we are talking about the very same page. This is a screenshot from a PDF file.Phogg2 (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what PDF file do you mean? Did you just scanned your paper version? Or what?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have reduced the size of the File you uploaded. This is required with fair use in Wikipedia.

Thanks for reducing the size of the image. The image is a screenshot of an electronic version of the IBM article in PDF format. I don't have a copy of the original IBM journal edition, and the only paper copy of the article that I have is in black and white. I guess if I printed out my PDF version, I would have a coloured one, though, eh? :) Phogg2 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thumb|24. Screenshot 1992 [http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/sowa.pdf IBM file]

Ok. Your coloured version is a real eye opener for me. I had no idea the first Zachman Framework looks like this.

Now I also uploaded the 1992 version of the Framework, we talked about. As you can see both images are no alike, although the subscript of the illustration states ″the original ISA framework″.

This is one of the problems I have mentioned before. There seems to be not one original version of the Zachman Framework. And the original isn't even called a Zachman Framework. For me these are the important things this article should explain.

Maybe we can make a collage of multiple the Zachman Frameworks, like the figure 13 above, to illustrate this article. As far a I know these kind of collages are no copyright violations, as long as you show only a part of each copyrighted scheme.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a collage to illustrate the evolution of the framework from the original Information System Architecture framework to the present form. Of course, the first major change was the addition of the Who, When and Why columns and the expansion of the framework from IS to enterprise. Other changes have been more subtle (e.g., change of description of Row 2 from "Enterprise Model" to "Business Model," names of some of the cells, etc.) The change reflected by version 2 is a major one.Phogg2 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We could create a collage if it really suites a purpose and illustrates an (not yet) existing text. In fact such a text should be based (as always) on reliable third party sources. This will prevent us from getting into discussion about our own interpretation of the development of the original ISA Framework.

I for example don't see that first major change you stipulate. Those "Who, When and Why columns" are allready mentions and visualized in the first 1987 article and added together in the second 1992 article.

The mayor change I experience is the change of the title and the scope of the Framework. Initialy Zachman presented it as a Framework for Information Systems Architecure (ISA), and somewhere on the way it became a Zachman Enterprise Framework. I for example haven't figured out yet, how this should work? In the ISA framework for example the designer/engineers/subcontracters/users, were the designer/engineers/subcontracters/users of the information systems architecture. But what or who are the designer/engineers/subcontracters/users of the Enterprise...!? Are these the designer/engineers/subcontracters/users of the Enterprise Architecture... !? Zachman explained in that 2007 interview he was targeting Enterprise Architecture from the beginning in the 1980s but the worlds wasn't ready for that concept yet. But it seems to me now the world is ready, the framework still has an ISA focuss...!? To avoid adding this kind of ideas to the article, I stick to the reliable third party sources.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, with regards to introduction of the columns, Zachman says this about it: "... when I published the early work, I wrote only about three of the columns. I wrote the first article in 1982, and it was published internally at IBM in 1984. Then I rewrote it for the IBM Systems Journal, an external refereed publication, in 1987. But the basic work was done by 1982." And, "By the time I published the revised paper in 1987, I began to get the inclination to think enterprisewide. I wrote in that article about the problem of having less than enterprisewide integration, and I talked about the other three columns in an appendix to the article."

The ISA framework illustration in the 1987 article is the same as the one that is referred to in the 1992 article.

When did we first see the term "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" (not "Zachman Enterprise Framework") is a good question. I'll see if I can find out.

The ISA framework was supposed to be used by planners, owners, designers, etc. That is how it is explained in the 1987 article. Even though, as John has said, today in the Information Age, IS doesn't merely suport the enterprise, it is the enterprise, most people still see a distinction between the technical side of an enterprise and the business side. Retaining the name ISA probably would have taken away from the idea that business leaders have to take charge of architecting THEIR enterprises.24.36.210.53 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Zachman Enterprise Framework"? In the 2007 "Zachman Framework: A Concise Definition" the framework is title "Zachman Enterprise Framework". Did the "ISA framework" developed from "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" to "Zachman Enterprise Framework"? One way or an other, it is clear there is not one Zachman Framework, but an evolving concept... with different titles!?

What I don't understand in the new framework is who the designer/engineers/subcontracters/users should be? And designer/engineers/subcontracters/users of what? It can't be the enterprise?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, "The Zachman Enterprise Framework" is the title of version 2. The one that evolved after the ISA was named "The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture." It is a little confusing, which is why I think the Wiki article should explain how the framework has evolved to its present form.

The designers/builders/subcontractors/users (or workers) are roles pertaining to the design, implementation and operation of an enterprise. Why do you think they can't be?Phogg2 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find much internet sources mentioning "Zachman Framework" and "version 2". Are these simply your words? I did notice there are several related terms here with some representation in multiple sources. I found the following terms with (google-rate/google.books-rate):

"Zachman Framework" (45.600 / 463)
"Information Systems Architecture Framework" (667 / 43)
"Zachman Information Systems Architecture Framework" (25 / 4)
"ISA Framework" (1.130 / 55)
"Zachman's ISA framework" (9 / 1)
"Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" (25 / 54)
"Zachman Enterprise Framework" (259 / 3)
"Zachman Enterprise Framework2" (45 / 0)

These are terms I found on the net, and not the terms used by Zachman himself. Bye the way this short inventarisation learns us, that the latest developments from "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" to "Zachman Enterprise Framework" must have happened recently.

Why it can't be the enterprise? I guess with the "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" since 1997 ?? the framework was refering to the "Enterprise Architecture". Now the "Enterprise Architecture" is not the same as the "enterprise". Any way it seems clear to me, that the "Information Systems Architecture" (ISA) (the whole of hardware, software and data), of a company gets redesigned continuously with designers, builders, contractors, subcontractors etc. The "Enterprise Architecture" however is the architecture of the whole enterprise operation, and this is a system of systems which no longer has one designer, or contracter...!?

Now I noticed the "Zachman Enterprise Framework2" doesn't mention the: designer / engineers / subcontracters / users any longer. It mentioned first stategists and exectutive leaders and then architects / engineers / technicians / workers. I think you can't call this a subtle change, but rather a big change in terminology. The 1987 ISA Framework and the 2008 "Zachman Enterprise Framework2" seem to have a lot more changes...!?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have added your upload of the image to the article in the history section, so other people can keep experiencing the original 1987 version for now. In time maybe we can replace this image with a collage of the development of originals etc. The other two images, here discusted, will be deleted next week, because it seems fair use images are not allowed here in Wikipedia on talk page. But these images are available on the web, your version isn't yet.

P.P.S. I started using these official names in the caption of the images. I think the history section should explain some more how these versions are related.

Marcel, looks like we are making progress. To answer some of the questions you raised, I thought I would expand a bit on my understanding of the evolution of the Zachman Framework and the various names.

First, the term "Zachman Framework" refers simply to the concept that anything may be described using the 6x6 "matrix" that John developed, with columns reflecting the six interrogatives, and rows reflecting the different perspectives of the roles involved with whatever is being described. The names of the roles and of the cells would vary depending on subject area.

John Zachman was interested in applying the framework to enterprise architecture, and so he developed the "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" following his earlier ISA work at IBM and later extended per the 1992 publication.

When we talk about the "original" Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture, we should be talking about the first version that had that title (and not the ISA version).

The original version was loaded with "IT baggage," meaning the terminology was IT-centric, which isn't surprising given its roots. John made changes to some of the terms used in the original framework, but the biggest change is reflected in version 2 of the framework, known as "Zachman Enterprise Framework2." It is less IT-centric in terminology, and reflects better the concept of "reification" that John has wanted to introduce in it.

Along with this version of the framework, there are four others known as "Zachman Standards Frameworks," namely: Enterprise Architecture Standards V2.01, Product Framework Standards, Profession Framework Standards, and Classification Framework Standards.

With regards to the designer/builder/sub-contractor issue, I don't think it was intended even with the ISA that we were only talking about a single designer, single builder, etc.; rather, they were simply the designer VIEW, builder VIEW, etc., regardless of the number of people actually involved, and it didn't matter whether we were talking about a single system or a "system of systems" built or changed over time.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: It occured to me that the title of the article should perhaps specify that it is about the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. The unqualified term, "Zachman Framework" just refers to the general concept of describing anything with the 6x6 "matrix."

Regarding your last remark: It seems to me your focus has been on the "Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" from the beginning. Maybe this explains our different opinions from the beginning. My focus from the beginning has been on the "Zachman Framework" as... a rather yet undefined concept, which has spread over the world in different media. In fact my aim from the beginning is not only getting better illustrations of the Zachman Framework, but also getting a better understanding of the concept itself and what it has become.

I think your doubts here are positive. There comes a time in the development of an article, when you go back to the initial question, what this article really should be about? And what Wikipedia articles are really about? It is my understanding that an article about the "Zachman Framework" is about the existing idea's about the "Zachman Framework" in independent third party sources. This article should explains the ideas the people have about the "Zachman Framework"... And this is the way Wikipedia works.

Now I noticed this is allmost the only article in Wikipedia you are working on. You reworked the article last year adding mainly Zachmans current idea's on the Framework. On the talkpage other users explained that more third party sources should be added, and I still agree on that. It is not that John Zachman's current idea's are not important. It is just that Wikipedia tries to explain the things happening in the world, and not the idea of one person. The "Zachman Framework" indeed is a unqualified term... or an unqualified concept, but a concept that emerged around the globe as a valuable idea. It has become part of our cultural and scientific inheritance, and this article should explain the how and why. If you know what I mean?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I googled the framework names you mentioned to determine their google-rate/google.books-rate:

"Zachman Standards Frameworks" 0/0
"Enterprise Architecture Standards V2.01" 2/0
"Product Framework Standards" 1/0
"Profession Framework Standards" 1/0
"Classification Framework Standards" 0/0

This sort of means that these terms are practically unknown (in the world), and heardly interesting for this article.

Marcel, when most people hear the term "Zachman Framework," I would say, if they know it at all, they assume it is referring to the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture, because that is what it is most famous for. The Zachman Framework article is certainly mostly about that particular application of it. I was just being nit picky in pointing out that if the article is to be mostly about the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture then perhaps that is what the title should be; otherwise, if it is to remain as just Zachman Framework there should perhaps be more emphasis on the generic concepts behind it and less focus on enterprise architecture.

I still feel strongly about not including graphics that include details that are not found in the works of John Zachman for the reasons stated above.

I understand the importance of including third party references as much as possible and did my best to find them when I was revising the article.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary first party sources from the article

I don't think you understand the inclusion of third party sources. It is not about adding them as a reference, it is representing them instead of representing the contemporay first party sources, as you did.

Now to explain what I mean I have removed all contemporary first party sources from the article, which shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. I allready copied most of this text to the John Zachman article where these contemporary first party sources are allowed. I suggest we rebuild this article following Wikipedia procedures.

As to the Zachman Framework that should be represented here, I say we stick to the three types:

"Information Systems Architecture Framework" (667 / 43)
"Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture" (25 / 54)
"Zachman Enterprise Framework" (259 / 3)

These types have severe coverage in third party sources, and this is what we need to represent.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I started some reconstruction of the article, using four different sources (only) for a start. If I continue (and I will) eventually up to 20 to 50 sources can be used. This is the way, it is garanteed that the article represents the exitsing ideas about the Zachman Framework... And this is, as I tried to explain earlier, the way Wikipedia works.

Marcel, I appreciate your ongoing interest in this topic. A concern I have about third party souces is that some of them have don't reflect a true understanding of the logic behind the Zachman Framework, or at least what the author of the framework would like people to understand. I just mention that as a caution.

I have noted that you have posted the Veteran's Affairs image of the Zachman Framework in the John Zachman article. Zachman International wanted it removed from the Zachman Framework article, so I'm positive they would not like to see it in the article about John. It should be removed. (By the way, I heard that VA stopped working with the Zachman Framework several years ago, even though their tutorial is still on their website.)

-- Phogg2 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as I understand it, doesn't make it their mission to enforce trademarks. That is up to the trademark owner, assuming that some of Zachman's work may be covered by trademarks. It is possible that some organizations have been influenced by Zachman's thinking and may refer to their own diagrams as Zachman diagrams. I believe that this issue lies between John Zachman and those organizations. If we find things referred to in the literature as 'Zachman diagrams' I think we're allowed to report on such usages. None of this reasoning allows us to reproduce material protected by copyright. If necessary we can use indirect language, like 'the VA has published articles where they refer to their own analysis as a Zachman method.' EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Phogg2 is still missing the point here. Wikipedia, as far as I now, doesn't removed text and images from third party sources, because they don't reflect the "true understanding of the logic behind the concept". The true understanding being the understanding of, in Wikipedia terms, of the "first party" source. Even stronger, I just removed all text from a recent interview with Zachman and text from the current Zachman Internation website, which Wikipedia considers contemporary first party sources. Please EdJohnson, correct me if I am wrong.

In the past discussion I have tried to explain all this, and have tried to find a better understanding of the "Zachman Framework" concept. And I agree with Phogg2's conclusion, above:

..."Zachman Framework" just refers to the general concept of describing anything with the 6x6 "matrix."

I think this is, what this article is about. And we could use the VA illustration, or an other illustration from a Public Domain source, such as these:

14. C4ISR AE, 1997.
15. DOE AE, 1998.
16. TEAF Matrix, 2000.
17. DODAF, 2003.

I don't know where else Phogg2 gets the idea, we should do what Zachman International wants. We don't let the Coca Cola Company dictate the Wikipedia article about cola. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, had to chuckle at a line in an e-mail that John Zachman sent out today in which he talks about "The Concise Definition of the Zachman Framework." The quote is: "A one-page synopsis, The Concise Definition of the Zachman Framework™ , which replaces the constantly changing framework description and many incorrect representations at Wikipedia Zachman Framework and Enterprise Architecture entries."

Nobody is dictating anything here, but it seems reasonable to me that if the author of something says you are making a mistake about his work, I think you should listen.

--Phogg2 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Inside information

@Phogg2, you seem to have all kinds of inside information. But I am beginning to suspect you only share a crippled version of it, trying to use it for your own purposes, whatever they maybe.

1. First of all, this quote by John Zachman is questionable by itself, and rather patronizing towards the Wikipedia community, that the Zachman Framework and Enterprise Architecture entries consist of many incorrect representations. We just haven't been able to create an optimal representation here. I will recall. After the Conflict of intrest here, mainly you created a previous version of this article (Sept 2008) here, which was mainly based on contemporary vision of John Zachman and Zachman International on the latest "The Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition".

Now I have already explained, that this fixation just on Zachman’s side of the story and just the current version of the Framework is unacceptable. Because in Wikipedia an article should cover it's origins, it's development, it's influence... and should maybe even avoid the recent activities, because this will be considered advertising and/or personal promotion.

2. Second, I don 't see Zachman stating that I am making a mistake about his work. This was just your interpretation. Even so I am not writing about his work, but I am writing here about a framework he initiated, but which got developed by all kinds of other people and organizations. Now I am writing in the common Wikipedia way, representing sources who have written about this. Real incorrect representation in Wikipedia get corrected by other people, users, and administrators. The only real incorrect representation recently made here, was your documentation with your upload of the image of the original Zachman Framework, see here. You missed some general information, which I added. You didn't added the right source.

3. Now this whole discussion started with the Veteran's Affairs image of the Zachman Framework, which I added to the article, and you have requested to be deleted a dozen times now. This week I learned the information you delivered about this is very incomplete. I recall: On 30 December 2008 you told you had received this note from Zachman International:

"These are extracts from the ORIGINAL Framework not done by us nor certified by us. It would not be a certified elaboration of the published Framework standards. It was done by someone in Veteran's Affairs for their internal use. It does not accurately represent the concepts as we presently understand them."

On 16 January you told something more about this:

(By the way, I heard that VA stopped working with the Zachman Framework several years ago, even though their tutorial is still on their website.)

Based on this information you would say, someone in Veteran's Affairs just made an extracts from the ORIGINAL Framework, without Zachman Internationals permission. Now apart from the question if there is or isn't an ORIGINAL Framework, or if copyright accepts people making extracts or not, there is the story why the Veteran's Affairs has made these extracts in the first place. You can maybe imagine, I was very surprise when I read the following words in a 2001 letter of John Zachman to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs:

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... (Source: John Zachman's letter to the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, July 20, 2001).

According to Zachman something historic has happened here. This really draw my intention, because these are the things Wikipedia likes to talk about. But what had happened...? Now as far as I can reconstruct the Department of Veterans Affairs in the new Millennium was planning to implement a Enterprise Architecture full based on the Zachman Framework. If I am not mistaken, this was called the VA-One project.

The Zachman Framework was used as a reference model to initiate a Enterprise Architecture Planning in 2001, see image 18.
Somewhere in between the VA Zachman Framework Portal was constructed, see image 19
This VA Zachman Framework Portal is still in use as a reference model for example in the determination of EA information collected from various business and project source documents, see image 20.
Now somewhere in the past this "A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework", see image 21, was created.

22. Integrated Process Flow for VA IT Projects (2001)
23. VA Zachman Framework Portal
24. VA EA Repository Introduction (2008)
25. A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework

Now this whole discussion started with the Veteran's Affairs image of the Zachman Framework, which I added to the article, and @Phogg2 have requested to be deleted a dozen times now. Now it becomes clear to me:

This presentation is part of the whole Enterprise Architecture development of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Its images aren't just "extracts from the ORIGINAL Framework".
This presentation is about the VA Enterprise Architecture.

It is work by a US VA federal government employee, reflecting on the US VA Enterprise Architecture. This kind of work is in the public domain, and Wikipedia can use this.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, it is my understanding that since the 2001 letter that you referred to was written, there was a change in leadership at VA, and they abandoned their original Zachman-oriented EA program.

You can try and rationalize this as much as you want, but the bottom line is you are using incorrect interpretations of the Zachman Framework to illustrate this article.

I have no hidden agenda here, nor am I using "crippled versions" of inside information for any purpose. My motivation from the beginning has been solely to provide accurate information about the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. As an EA consultant, I have frequently had to correct misunderstandings about it with clients, and I viewed the Wikepedia source as an excellent way to help that cause.

I don't know if you have noticed, but one of the many changes that Zachman has made to the framework is droping adjectives such as "conceptual," "logical" and "physical," which could be applied to anything (e.g., you can have a conceptual physical model) in favour of nouns such as "concepts," "logic" and "physics," which are more precise terms.

I think we owe it to Wikipedia readers to present the more current thinking on each topic. You have made some excellent contributions here, but publishing incorrectly labelled images of the framework is not that helpful, nor do I think it is it all that helpful to focus on outdated knowledge or thinking as reflected in the original version of the framework. By all means we should refer to the older version in the History section, but it is the latest one that we should concentrate on.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, your motivation is

... "to provide accurate information about the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture".
... "to correct the misunderstanding about the Zachman Framework..."

And you are convinced that:

The illustration of the VA Zachman Framework is an... "incorrect interpretations of the Zachman Framework to illustrate this article".
The only Zachman framework worth mentioning is the ... "one entity known as the Zachman Enterprise Framework2. It's trademarked illustration may be seen at http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/home-article/13#maincol." (your words from the Talk:John Zachman)

Now I think the bottom line is that we are talking about two different things.

your focus is on the current Zachman Enterprise Framework2,
while my focus is on the Zachman Framework, in essence a matrix and methodology, and not one particular presentation.

Now I think maybe there is an easy way to end our disagrement here.

We create a new Zachman Enterprise Framework2 article, were you can focus on the current state of art at Zachman International
We copy the 9 September 2008 version of this article there as a start, which was mostly your work.
And I write a general article about the Zachman Framework here.

I would like to ask EdJohnston (an others) to give their response to this proposal. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our current Zachman framework article is rather brief and sketchy. For what it's attempting to do, I think it's a reasonable article. Any further improvements should be based on published sources. If people think the article ought to be changed, what is the new information that we fail to reflect? Where can we read about the new information? If something is a personal communication from John Zachman, that is not yet a publication, and not yet suitable for our use. Are there any sources to show that we have an 'incorrect interpretation'? EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess, you are right. I am working on an extention of the current article in my userspace (you can take a look). But I am still busy putting the peaces together. And I think there is more information to be add.

Phogg2 seems to be convinced that an article about the Zachman Framework, should be all about the 2008"The Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition". From this perspective he is right that the 2002 "illustration of the VA Zachman Framework" in the current article is an incorrect interpretations of the 2008 "Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition".

He however fails to realize or to accept, that I am writting from an other perspective of the Zachman Framework, based on what the reliable sources have to say about the term "Zachman Framework".

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, Marcel. Let's see if we can agree on this. Using the poster at [http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/home-article/13#maincol as a reference, the part of it that is just the Zachman Framework would be everything excluding the labels on the right side of the rows and the "e.g." examples in the cells, for that part of the framework may be used to describe anything that is created (e.g., products, services, enterprises, etc.). The Zachman Enterprise Framework, with the right-hand-side labels that reflect enterprise stakeholders and "e.g." examples about enterprise elements, is an application of the basic Zachman Framework for describing enterprises.

I think your idea about splitting the article has merit It would be instructive and would help clarify understanding about the subject. Unfortunately, I don't think you will find many sources of information about just the Zachman Framework "root." Virtually all of the sources focus on their interpretation of its application to enterprise architecture.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Two different perceptions on Zachman Framework

Phogg2. Attempting to split the Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition, as you describe, makes little sense to me. I wonder if you have realized by now we are working from two different perspectives, and expectations of this article:

As an EA consultant related to the Zachman International the Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition only right Zachman Framework. That is why this article should explain all about, what Zachman International calls the Zachman Framework2, it's concept, the idea behind it, the development towards it and it's application.
As a Senior Editor in Wikipedia, who has started over 250 Wikipedia articles, and improved (Wikified) over 2500 articles, I work from a Encyclopedic point of view, considering the Zachman Framework a subjects which should be represented through the use of the ideas in reliable sources. That is why this article should explain about, what the people in the world mean with the term "Zachman Framework": It's different meaning, it's history, components, application and critics. In this perception the Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition is the latest update by the Zachman International, just a footnote in the story, not the central theme.

Do you Phogg2 understand by now that we have these two different perceptions. Or do you only thing you are right and I am wrong. What do you think? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, I too favour a complete coverage of the topic from its inception to the present day. My only objection has been the inclusion of incorrectly labelled images of the framework for reasons I have explained above.

In a section that could perhaps be called the development or evolution of the concept, I think we are in agreement that we need to cover four main periods or sub-topics: (1) the original three-column ISA publication and its impact; (2) the extension of the ISA to the 6x6 matrix; (2) the change to the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture (1995 - 2005) including an explanation of the subtle changes made in it; and (4) the major change to the Zachman Enterprise Framework (beginning in 2005), and Zachman Framework Standards.

Wikipedia is a hugely popular source of knowledge, as you well know. When people want to find out about the Zachman Framework, I would like them to have as complete and as accurate an explanation as possible. In my opinion, incorrectly labeled images of the framework hurt rather than help achieving that aim. As I'm sure you also know, despite how long it has been promoted and explained by John zachman and others, a lot of people still don't understand it very well. (I have had clients who thought that all they had to do was fill in the cells with artifacts (usually system development artifacts) and, abaracadabra, they would have an enterprise architecture.)

-- Phogg2 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. First: I have been redesigning this article in my own userspace, see here, hereby making a same kind of differentation in the history section, you present here. Here we seem to agree.

Second: In the mean time I also realized that the caption of the first image is incorrect:

Simplified illustration of the latest 2008 socalled "Zachman Enterprise Framework" with an explaination of the rows.[1] The original John Zachman's Concise Definition of the Enterprise Framework is more advanced, see for that definition for example here

Only this week I discovered this image isn't an illustration of the latest Zachman Framework™: A Concise Definition from 2008. It is a 2002 illustration, when Zachman's Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture had a rather different appearance.

Third: This 2002 image is in the public domain, (or at least I strongly believe so, see also Talk:John Zachman). And there is nothing wrong with this image, or with using this image in Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't demand that we represent only the latest model, or the images by the originator of the concept.

And last but not least: Wikipedia also doesn't demand that an article explains the rules of the latest version. It also doesn't have to be exact. It only has to give an encyclopedic impression. If they want every detail, people should contact a consultant or Zachman International. All those details about the exact current description of the framework is really a waste of time here. It doesn't have to be complete. It shouldn't be complete. The Unified Modeling Language UML manual (Version 1.3, March 2000) is about 1.034 pages and the Wikipedia article summerizes it in less then two pages.

In that new design I am creating, also different types of applications are mentioned, and I would like to use the VA-One AEF as an example. I think this kind of information will help people realize, what kind of possibilities the Zachman Framework is offering.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It seems to me if an images is incorrectly labelled, one could correct the label, instead of persisting the image to be removed.

Marcel, I have had a look at the work you are doing in your user space and it looks very good to me. I think you are doing a great job of capturing and presenting the historical facts and explanations of the concepts behind the Zachman Framework.

I thought before that I had only one concern, namely including illustrations of the framework that don't coincide with illustrations published by John Zachman. I don't think there is anything wrong with providing a simplified version of any of his posters as long as in the simplified version the names of the rows and columns aren't changed (Rule #6 of the seven rules pertaining to the original version). I take your point that one could correct an image rather than removing it altogether. By all means, at least do that, and also make it clear that it doesn't represent the thinking behind the current version.

I have another concern in that the article is based almost entirely on the original Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. There has been a major change in the thinking behind it. Although we should indeed cover it to some degree in an historical sense, I think the emphasis should be on the current version, which has been in existence since 2005 (not 2008), and it should be the one that is illustrated in the introductory section. I noticed that Stan Locke used a low-res copy of it in his article "Enterprise Convergence in Our Lifetime," with instructions for obtaining a printable, personal use copy. I would like to see us take the same aproach in the Zachman Framework article. I will renew this suggestion with Zachman International.

I appreciate your comments regarding how it isn't Wikipedia's mission to provide all possible information about a subject, and your example about UML is a good one. I am in complete agreement with that, and we defintely should be taking the same approach with the Zachman Framework.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple example of The Zachman Framework

Ok thanks for taking a look. We seem to be reaching some kind of common understanding, although several things are still unclear. We both want to improve this article, but started with an opposite strategy:

I want to improve the illustration of the Zachman Framework
And you want to include/exclude illustrations of the framework that don't coincide with illustrations published by John Zachman.

Now we both favor a complete coverage of the topic from its inception to the present day. We are still not clear about which images, we should use.

You keep focusing on the originals by John Zachman and Zachman International
I am particularly looking for images in the public domain, which could be used.

Now in the new draft I am making I added this 2002 image (27) on top. I noticed, that Bill Inmon has used the same PD image in his 2005 John Zachman - One of the Best Architects I Know. He called the image "A simple example of The Zachman Framework" and further wrote "Since the first appearance of the Zachman Framework, John has added and refined to the framework". Now I wonder, why you can't do the same? Consider it a simple example. I think people automatically understand this is not the official Zachman Framework by Zachman International.

Now I have no problem altering some of the inscriptions of the image to make it compliant with the latest 2005 Concise Definition of the Enterprise Framework by Zachman International. However:

This should be uploaded as a new image
The image description should explicitly mention the source being adapted to be compliant with the latest 2005 Concise Definition of the Enterprise Framework by Zachman International.
I could image, that this altered new image will be considered a copyright violation.

If you want me to create a new simple example of The Zachman Framework, please tell me exactly what you want to have changed, and I will create and upload such a new file.

Now about those low-res copies of the original Zachman Frameworks. We already added the 1987/1999 original to the current article based on fair use. And we could add the latest 2005 version, and maybe even a version in between, based on fair use. I think it would tremendously help people to separate the originals from the simple illustrations.

Now there are several details, we could discuss if we have some more agreement. I will develop the draft version in my userspace some more, and then add it here, probably within a week.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, Bill Inmon's image is not just simplified, he changed the label of Row 5 from "Out-of-Context," which is what appears in the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture, to "As Built" - his own interpretation. If you noticed, in the simplified verion of the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture that I provided I just used the names of the stakeholders - exactly the same names as appears in the Zachman Framework. The names of the Rows that Inmon used are the adjectives - Conceptual, Conceptual etc. - for the the models, e.g., the System Model (Row 3) is the logical representation of the enterprise. I appreciate that Inmon probably thinks people understand the term "As Built" better than they do "Out-of-Context," but the fact is "Out-of-Context" is the term used in THE Zachman Framework. (As I am sure you must know, the reason John used that term was to indicate that the individuals who build whatever do so from component specifications provided by the developer (Builder) and may not know or care about the larger enterprise context.)

So, if you want to retain Inmon's simplified version, I suggest the Row 5 label should be changed to "Out-of-Context." If that isn't feasible for some reason, then an alternative approach may be to point out the difference between Inmon's label and the one that appears on the original Zachman Framework.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Phogg2, Bill Inmon's didn't change the image. It is the same as image 23 here. He probably retrieved it in 2005 from the same Public Domain source as I recently did: the 2002 VA presentation. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, yes, that's probably correct, but it still doesn't mean using it, as is, is the right thing to do. :) -- Phogg2 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I recreated the image 27. Is this image 28 what you want? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's better. If we can't post the full version, this may be the best we can do. In the full version, Zachman had three descriptors for the top five rows: (1) Scope, Business Model, System Model, Technology Model, and Detailed Representations - the mprimary row descriptors; (2) {contextual}, {conceptual}, {logical}, {physical}, and {out-of-context}; and (3) Planner, Owner, Designer, Builder, and Subcontractor. The words in curly brackets (contextual, etc.) were meant as clarifying adjectives for the primary row descriptors, e.g., the Business Model is the conceptual representation of the enterprise. I'm thinking that it may be better to use the primary descriptors (Scope, etc.) than the adjectives. If we go with the one with adjectives, it may need more explanation than one with the primary descriptors. What do you think?

-- Phogg2 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I recreated an other image with the Planner, Owner, Designer, Builder, and Subcontractor mentioned and only one colomn at each side, instead of two. I think this suites the special used in Wikipedia as a first introduction. That is what I think. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. But it really doesn't matter that much to me, which version will be used. I would like, if we choose one version in the different articles. I consider an image like this also as a visual reminder. When people start reading about enterprise architecture, they encouter a lot of different concepts. These visual reminders help people "to remind" these concepts, to keep them apart. If have been introducing images in a few dozend articles in this field, and hope this works.

I think your latest is good for illustrating the stakeholder view concept, but the names of the stakeholders aren't the names of the rows. The names of the rows are: Scope, Business Model, System Model, Technology Model, Detailed Representations, and Functioning Enterprise. Of course, as we have been discussing, these concepts and names were replaced 2005 with the introduction of Zachman Enterprise Framework2. Hopefully we will receive permission to use a copy of the latest framework as the main one, with the others treated in the historical, evolutionary sense.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want a version with those row names just say so, see image 30.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Or maybe you want the double row back, see image 31. Whatever you want...!?

28. Simple example of The Zachman Framework.
29. Simple example of Zachman Framework
30. Simple example Zachman Framework
31. Simple example Zachman Framework (with a double row).

Marcel, you are a poster production factory! :)

In the interest of simplicity, and hopefully to avoid copyright complaints, I would recommend #30 to illustrate the original Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. (Row 5 should be "Detailed Representations," though - plural.)

-- Phogg2 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just like to get the right images available here. So I updated row 5 in image nr 31 and 32 as you asked. It seems we have got a series of four images of the Zachman Framework. To stipulate the differences, I guess I could and should update the image descriptions to:

(Image 28) : Simple example of The Zachman Framework with the secundary six rows: Contextual, Conceptual, Logical, Physical, Out-of-context, and Functioning, and with a double row and column description.
(Image 29) : Simple example of Zachman Framework with the primary six rows: Planner, Owner, Designer, Builder, Subcontractor, and Functioning Enterprise, and with a single row and column description.
(Image 30) : Simple example Zachman Framework with the top six rows: Scope, Business Model, System Model, Technology Model, Detailed Representations and Functioning Enterprise, and with a single row and column description.
(Image 31) : Simple example Zachman Framework (n) with the top six rows: Scope, Business Model, System Model, Technology Model, Detailed Representations and Functioning Enterprise, and with a double row and column description.

Do you think this is ok? Instead of one simple example of The Zachman Framework, we seem to have created multiple simple example of The Zachman Framework...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel, what we have done is take the original Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture, which as three descriptors for the first five rows (Name of row, adjective, and stakeholder) and split them up into three separate frameworks. I suggest only using one, namely #30.

That said, we seem to have ignored something else from the original ZF for EA, the names of the columns. The What, How, Where, Who, When and Why names are the names of the so-called "normative Zachman Framework," the framework that can be applied to anything, products, services, etc. The names of application of the framework to enterprises specifies Data, Function, Network, People, Time and Motivation. If we leave these names out, aren't we missing an important part of the framework as it was at that time.

-- Phogg2 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple example is always a simplification. No doubt the original Zachman Framework has multiple levels. But even if we could use that image, also that image doesn't explain itself.

In the new article I am designing I have added two image to explain the rows, and rules. I will do what you ask and take image 30 as a base, see image 32. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Don't forget to add Rule #7 to the list. -- Phogg2 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As an update, I have received acknowledgement from Zachman International about my suggestion for posting a low-res version of the current poster in the WIKI article. Hope to receive a decision soon.

I just noticed this statement by John Zachman on his website at [1]: "I have had significant difficulties over the past 2 years in trying to keep the Wikipedia definition of The Framework consistent with my intent, and found that a few folks keep changing the entry to what The Framework is not. To compensate for this, I have written a single one page overview of The Framework which is held here on my site."

-- Phogg2 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest word from zachman International is that they do not wish to allow the image of the Zachman Enterprise Framework2 to be used in the Wikipedia article because of Wikipedia's policy of not publishing material with copyrights.

--Phogg2 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so be it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)