Talk:Dragon1

Suggestions
ik denk dat het goed is dat er een discussie pagina is om de wijzigingen te bespreken. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld dat er een link moet komen naar Concept. Vraag is of deze definitie voor gebruik bij Dragon1 voldoende is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjurrien (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor changes
I've just made some minor changes to the page. Dragon1 approach and definitions of Principles is more specific than many of the other EA frameworks in that Principles are not wishlists or desired outcomes but are consequential in that one can observe "cause & effects" resulting from the execution of a principle.

Original research removed from the article

 * The following sections are removed from the article 11 February 2013 (see here) because it is Original research (see further comment below)

... ... ... ... ... The Dragon1 Architecture Foundation provides Dragon1 free of charge to organizations for their own internal noncommercial purposes

Futher comment
I have removed the above section, which has been added in 8 revision because (see here) because most of it is Original research. None of the added links seem to confirm the added text. -- Mdd (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Paauwe (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Hello MDD, All the links that were added by the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation (Agis, Maastricht, UWV, Rijkswaterstaat) are to show how Dragon1 performed in a project confirming the statement. We re now trying to get permission for downloads/publication for these projects. For instance on the Agis Zorgverzekeringen project the following A0-poster Architecture Blueprint was created using the Dragon1 EA Method: http://www.dragon1.org/downloads/dragon1-agis-archimate-2009.png, As input a non communicable Archimate poster was used. this project is an example of how you can put Dragon1 as architecture method on top of Archimate, so you can use Archimate at engineering level and Dragon1 at strategic level. This project at Agis shows that Dragon1 is usable as add on to other enterprise architecture frameworks and modelling standards (such as Archimate, TOGAF and DYA). At the Rabobank Dragon1 is used on top of DYA. At Rijkswaterstaat there are using Dragon1 on top of TOGAF. All mainly to make architecture through new kinds of visualization and a different approach of Architecture Principles more communicable and decisionable for management and board.


 * Also in the Dragon1 Textbook the following organizations are listed to have contributed in the development of Dragon1 and some of them are still using Dragon1: Agis Zorgverzekeringen - Amersfoort, ASR Verzekeringen - Utrecht, Connexxion - Hilversum, Crédit Agricole - Amsterdam, Delta Lloyd - Amsterdam, Gemeente Gouda, Gemeente Roerdalen, Gemeente Steenwijkerland, Gemeente Sneek, Gemeente Maastricht, Holland Casino - Hoofddorp, HWW Zorg (former MEAVITA) - Den Haag, ING Bank - Amsterdam, KPN - Den Haag, OHRA - Arnhem, Sociale Verhuurders Haaglanden - Den Haag, UWV - Amsterdam, Woningstichting Rijnmond - Rotterdam, Vestia - Delft, Ziekenhuis Gelderse Vallei - Ede.


 * Furthermore the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation is awaiting articles to be written about the results of the past projects such as UK Defense etc... When available the articles will be published and put on the web en linked to from this Wikipedia Article.


 * What do you mean with All the links that were added by the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation...? The article's history shows:
 * and the other half by the IP adress 178.132.210.107 see here
 * The IP adress seems to be yours (see here), where you forgot to log in. Do you mean you are both working in the name of the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation? -- Mdd (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark Paauwe (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) No, I do NOT work in the name of the foundation. The people of the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation also work in the same building. I think there are five different companies (my company, the Dragon1 Foundation and other companies), in the same building and on the internet we all have the same ipaddress.

PS: Here is a nice example of someone working for the Dutch National Library doing an architecture study and creating beautiful Dragon1 visualizations: http://www.hanvanroosmalen.nl/nl/bnl-dragon1-visualisatie. This guy told me that at the Dutch National they were astonished by the steering-power these Dragon1-visualization bring.


 * Thanks for the link, which is now added to the article. -- Mdd (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MDD: here is my international presentation on the open Dragon1 EA Method I will do at the EAC 2013 in june: http://www.irmuk.co.uk/eac2013/day2.cfm#Day2S17 Mark Paauwe (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Around that time more independent international publications / articles of Dragon1 application will appear. Can you also please put the references back that the Foundation added. Some organizations involved find it strange they are not mentioned on the article page, but only on the talkpage. If you require for a link to a publication per reference please say so. And with all those organizations listed on this page (see also the Dragon1 textbook in the reference chapter) busy with the application of Dragon1 or having contributed to the development of it, what reason is there still to leave the notability template on?


 * Mark, we seem to talking about at least four different matters:
 * Your customers expectations : you can use your own wiki to meet them all
 * The removed references : they fail WP:CITE: They are not reliable sources, on which the article is based; they seem to be misused External links
 * The notability tag : should only be removed if the article actually meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
 * The mysterious Foundation : Participation of companies is strongly discouraged, and they cannot even log on with there own name, read WP:CORPNAME. For us the one contribution you refer to is made by an anonymous user. Please keep it simple. First you say I do NOT work in the name of the foundation, next you speak for them please put the references back that the Foundation added. That isn't working.
 * Future publications : We don't take future publications into account and don't judged notability based on potential notability.
 * I am sorry to say but this article seems WP:TOOSOON. -- Mdd (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * MDD: There is nothing mysterious about the Dragon1 Architecture Foundation. I do not work for them but since they do manage the body of knowledge of the open Dragon1 EA Method, as founder of the method, ofcourse I am sometimes in contact with them, wouldn't you.

Furthermore, this article is not to early, more than 1000 persons in the netherlands work with the method, and the number of users in England and surinam are growing and the foundation added several references of projects executed at very neutral organizations, the book of van Haren is a neutral source stating Dragon1 is an architecture method, open group also approves it in Open CA and ISO also refers to the method.

Also the method is now even used at UK Defense. In the Dragon1 textbook it is published publicly over 20 organizations contributed to the method. And this Dragon1 article has more notable sources than the IAF article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Architecture_Framework. All the persons in the references on that IAF-article are people who worked at Capgemini on IAF.

The IAF is for what I see less used than the years before, in contrast with Dragon1, which is growing in use. Also this Dragon1 article has more neutral references than the Archimate article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimate. (only reference 4 and 5 are neutral, the rest is not).

Got a new link: http://www.xr-magazine.nl/artikelen/933/overheid/poster-gouda-geeft-antwoord%C2%A9, do you consider this neutral?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Paauwe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)