Talk:Extended Enterprise Modeling Language

The EEML Subarticles merged here
With this edit the following three subarticles were merged here, and redirected each to their own chapter here: I think it is better now having all this information in one place, instead of scattered over these four articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goal Modelling
 * Goal modeling in EEML
 * Goal-oriented Requirements Language


 * Hi Marcel, I think events have overtaken you. GRL is now part of an international standard, based on i*, which makes it considerably more notable than EEML. See Professor Eric Yu's homepage. So I think GRL really needs its own article now. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked and it seems you are right. There seems to be some more representation on Goal-oriented Requirements Language (also written as Goal-oriented Requirement Language...!? ) then on EEML. Suddenly merging GRL here doesn't seems such a logic choice any more. I have no problem splitting this article in two again again. The GRL article still exist as a redirect. I could easily be undone. But it would be nice if that article would be improved some more first. Any interest? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just recreated that article. I think it is still rather thin, but it will do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonly used?
EEML is certainly widely discussed. from a reasonably diverse community, so I think this is easily sufficient for establishing the notability of the language. But all the sources appear to be academic papers. Is there any evidence of its actual use? --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I added two source who actually describe a use of EEML, see John Krogstie (2006) and Paul Johannesson (2008). From what I read this seems like a rather academic use, but this is one way modeling languages developed in the academic world develope.
 * I do think I would be nice if this article would express some more of these EEML practices and also it's origins.
 * -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I certainly don't want to encourage tool vendors to promote their wares, I would say that a modelling language without a decent modelling tool has little credibility for non-academic use. The fact that no tool vendors have tried to spam this article makes me suspect that there isn't a tool. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are rules about notability in Wikipedia, and I don't thing "The presents of vendors spamming the article" is one of them. Let's just try to stick to the facts here. Is there a tool or isn't there. Maybe the "Extended Enterprise Modeling Language" hasn't yet developed into any vendor's tool. Who knows? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't claim the presence of a tool as a necessary criterion of notability. But it is an indicator. If you are going to devote effort to Wikipedia articles on modelling languages, I'd reckon it's worth spending more time on the ones that do have tools. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already spend numerous edits on several articles on modeling languages here, but I am still not (yet) particularly interested in those modeling tools. My interest is in the different types of modeling languages, their developers, their use, and the whole history of the field. I guess because I also developed a new modeling language on my own. Here on Wikipedia I am interested in improving the presentation of existing modeling languages and their developers. I think modeling languages as any new product development have an initial phase in which tools are not developed yet... and mayeb it never came that far. They can still be notable. Anyway... if you have particular idea's, which modeling languages could use some more attention here, please let me know. I can take a look!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of modelling languages. All you need is two universities, an industrial partner, and a bit of EU funding. You create a website with an impressive domain name, and post a few unpublished working papers. If you are persistent, you can get some papers accepted into an obscure conference somewhere, and - Voila - you are notable enough to get into Wikipedia. Frankly, I'd prefer to see a much tougher entry condition for this kind of academic stuff. I am sure a lot of it is very clever, but most of it never gets used, never even gets properly evaluated outside the project team that cooked it up. On the first page of an internet search for "Enterprise Modelling/Modeling Methodology" I found FIDO, TOVE, POEM, EM, MEMO and a couple of possibly spurious references to IDEF. Oh, and here's one of mine - EMM/ODP. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So which of these are worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia? The ones that are used and taken seriously by people other than their creators. The ones that are adopted by standards organizations. I am content to think that my obscure research isn't notable enough, but when I see equally obscure research getting Wikipedia coverage I start to get restless. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the languages I'm looking at at the moment (prompted by a Dutch colleague) is DEMO, invented by Jan Dietz and described briefly on his page. There is an article in the Dutch wikipedia. Do you happen to know anyone with fluent Dutch?  [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]] --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote both articles on Dietz, and most of the DEMO article, and took his picture. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhere I read, there are allready thousands of business process modeling languages. When I realized, I allready know of three initiatives at the TU Delft alone (one being DEMO), that number didn't surprise me any longer. Every (technical) university seems to be developing it's own initiatives. That seems to be the reality. This made it even stranger, that there wasn't a Wikipedia article on Business process modeling. I think it will be ideal, if there should be at least a series of a dozend specific languages, which can be complemented with one general (for example business proces) modeling article. My interest is in those general articles: Function modeling, Business Process modeling, Enterprise modeling, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, UML, Data modeling etc... And there is enough work here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of checking EMM/ODP and the person behind it, and wrote a Richard Veryard article during the process. I found hardly any coverage on EMM/ODP although it is mentioned more then a few times. The pdf file on the 1994 article seems to be damaged. At present I think there is not enough coverage of the subject to justify a separate article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I'm flattered. I prefer not to edit my own article, but I have put a few biographical details on my userspace which you may find helpful. User:RichardVeryard/About me --RichardVeryard (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the details, I could only use some. Now I think you do could correct mistakes. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

EEML is (un)related to UEML
The Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (UEML) redirects to EEML but, to my knowledge, they are unrelated developments. See [uemlwiki.org] (which is maintained by me) for the background of UEML.

At least the redirections from UEML to EEML should be removed. I also offer to contribute a separate page on UEML based on the (free-for-all) materials on the Wiki. If I do not hear otherwise, I will proceed to do so in a few days.

Alopdahl (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Andreas. Writing a separate article about the Unified Enterprise Modelling Language seems like a good idea. I will be glad to give you a hand, when ever needed. Now I didn't make the initial redirect, see here, but I did write the current history section, which claims UEML is an further development of EEML, which I read in François Vernadat (2002). Now you claim UEML and EEML are unrelated. But even in uemlwiki.org the page on the background states:


 * It developed and demonstrated a common abstract syntax and exchange format, which incorporated three important industrial European enterprise modelling languages: EEML (EXTERNAL 2000), GRAI (Doumeingts, Vallespir, Zanettin & Chen 1992) and IEM (Jochem & Mertins 1999). 


 * So it seems to me they are not that unrelated. Both seems a product of EU funding, and if I am not mistaken the developement of UEML started after EEML was developed. Some people seemed to be om both development teams, but this is just a guess. On the other end your the expert here, and I am just an outsider (My effort here is part of my attempt to get a PhD started in this field).


 * One remark which could be helpfull. You are planning to use the material of the uemlwiki.org, which you claim is free-for-all. At the wiki itself I couldn't find any disclaimer, which explains the terms of use. In Wikipedia this is often a source of trouble. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and apologies for overstating my point. I was trying to argue that UEML is quite different from EEML today, as it tries to solve another type of problem. But "unrelated" is too strong, I agree.


 * I will proceed to draft a UEML page in a few days. I will re-write to avoid terms of use problems. It would be great if you can look over and improve afterwards. Alopdahl (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for explaining. I would advice you to start a draft version in your own userspace/sandbox first. Things work a little different around here, and an article like Informasjonssystem wouldn't hold here, because of notability issues, see Notability. In short: Wikipedia articles here need to be build on reliable third party sources, if they are around. Now I all seen they are present, and there are several other people involved in its development of which I recently wrote an article. So eventually there won't be a problem. If you create that draft, I can explain some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration
-- Mdd (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In this edit the Goal modeling in EEML article was merged here.
 * In this edit the Goal-oriented Requirements Language article was merged here.
 * In this edit the Goal Modelling article was merged here.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Extended Enterprise Modeling Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070316081650/http://www.idi.ntnu.no:80/emner/tdt4250/pensum/EEML2005-autumn2005.doc to http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/tdt4250/pensum/EEML2005-autumn2005.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)