Talk:ArchiMate

Overview
'An architecture framework is used to structure the concepts and relationships of the Archimate Language' - what does this mean? Is it suggesting that Archimate is an architecture framework (ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 defines it as an Architecture Description Language). It can't be both an Archimate language and architecture framework. Some clarification is needed here. If it is an architecture framework then some justification is needed (preferably with respect to international standards).

Wikitect (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. The text indeed was confusing, and is rephrased now with a reference to the online specification (and more clarification). I hope this resolves the confusion. -- Mdd (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Earlier version of this article integrated into the existing text
The draft of an earlier version of this article from User:HansvanDrunen (see here) is copy/pasted (see here) and integrated (see here) into this article. Just for the record I did contacted Hans van Drunen first and asked and received his approval. This text has been integrated because I think it gives appropriate more detailed information, but it does need some more references. -- Mdd (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Software Tools
Hello admin for this page,

The Dragon1 open EA Method (www.dragon1.org) is not the same as Dragon1 EA Tool (www.dragon1.com)

The line Dragon1 EA Method (certified by the Open Group for ArchiMate 2) should be changed into Dragon1 EA Tool https://www.dragon1.com/ea-tool or https://www.dragon1.com

Here is the Open Group conformance statement: https://www.dragon1.com/downloads/archimate2toolconformancestatement_dragon1.html PS: Dragon1 EA Tool is also mentioned bij Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-2Q45NIB&ct=151020&st=sb

Kind regards, Mark Paauwe mark.paauwe@dragon1.com Mark Paauwe (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArchiMate 3.0 - Changes required
Some of the material in the page (as of 27 June 2016) has been rendered out of date by the release of ArchiMate 3.0. Version 3 adds new Strategy and Physical layers that leaves the layer diagram on this page out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabs (talk • contribs) 02:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on ArchiMate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archimate.org/en/about_archimate/what_is_archimate.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-64437/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724162610/https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-43839/ to https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-43839/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ArchiMate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821101652/http://www.archimate.org/ to http://www.archimate.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No content regarding visualisation
In the introduction, it is said that arxhimate comes with visualization techniques but the rest of the text deals with model and structure. What kind of diagrams or visualizations are in the standard?

Dostl ba (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Dostl ba (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

ArchiMate Tools
@75.136.71.45: There are entire articles discussing sofware tools, e. g. Comparison of file comparison tools. The list of Archimate Tools is essential for the article. Pls stop removing it. --Karl Hilpolt (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Comparison of file comparison tools is an index of existing Wikipedia articles with added content. What you're trying to keep on this article is low-content directory of stuff, much of which has no Wikipedia article, and a few of which contain guideline violating external links. - 75.136.71.45 (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Three weeks with no reply, so by your silence I assume you take my point and have no further objections. - 75.136.71.45 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it open when I have to register for spec access?
I fail to understood why ArchiMate is considered an open standard. Is there more source then the Open Group themself? As far as I can see, it requires a fee at least for commercial use like EN or ISO - if I want to read and even comply to them with my product, I have to pay a licence fee. Reference for spec: In text body are two links: under licence and evaluation copy instant after registration. The first links tells me, that as a non-member I get only "a free, personal, 90-day Evaluation License" and as a member I can get "a personal annual Member License". The evaluation copy offers to turn into "use it internally under a free, perpetual Non-Commercial License". So as far as I understand Open access and open source there is not so much open here - only "open to fee payers". Am I the only one that thinks ArchiMate and ISO are in terms of access and usage quite the same - and not really open? Is there any definition of an "open standard"? The OMG requires neither login nor fees to access and comply to their standards. (I refrain from discussing a business model for standardization groups, just the term "open" for a standard) 77.47.94.133 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (disclaimer: I'm the current Chair of the Open Group ArchiMate Forum, and as such might be a little bit biased. But I'm always open to criticism)
 * There have been several discussions and criticism in the past around this topic, and The Open Group made several moves in the right direction when launching version 3.0 of the specification. IMHO, the key points making ArchiMate an open standard today is:
 * Despite the fact that changes to the standard itself are ultimately decided by Open Group Forum members, an official, free and open call for feedback and improvement ideas is made before a new version is worked on.
 * Anyone can read the specification online without prior registration.
 * Unless you're making money with the standard (e.g. selling a modelling software that claim to be compliant, or provide paid training), you can use it for free. One big exception is consultancy which doesn't require a license fee either (see official license).
 * It is perfectly fine to implement ArchiMate in an opensource tool (e.g. Archi), or in a tool which doesn't claim to be compliant (e.g. draw.io), without having to pay any fee. The key point is: if you make money by claming your tool is compliant, then you have to have your tool certified and pay fees.
 * Your models can be exchanged accross tools using an official, XML based, interoperability format. JbSarrodie (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)