[Music] hi this is mark bodman in this session we're going to discuss the archimate 3.1 mapping to cstm version 3. so a little bit about archimate so archimate is an open group standard that was created to help organizations that had enterprise architecture teams up until this point we had a whole bunch of different types of languages used in our enterprise architecture this is the very first time it was actually created as a standard and if you want to learn more you can go to the opengroup.org and go to the arctimate forum so some of the differences and similarities here between the csdm and arctimate model uh csdm focuses largely on the structure of data how things are dependent on one another and so especially when it comes to the infrastructure getting down to from a conceptual level down to a physical level of the diagram within cstm archimede however covers more or less behavior and interaction between entities so as you're looking at design elements you have less structure and archimede and more or less behavior elements that are supported the use of cstm obviously is more of a servicenow platform specific use case where we have all of our products and services and integrations basically using cstm from a common data model our command is used by larger enterprises that have typically dedicated enterprise architecture teams and tools that support archimede since our command has become a standard we see a lot of the tool sets that existed in new ones that coming to market that natively support our commit the origins of cstm it's relatively new it was created in 2018 as a collaboration between different product units internally and we soon saw the value of taking our framework and sharing it with customers archimede originally was the language that was developed for biz design it was originally a business design was a consulting organization and they developed their tools to support their consulting practices the language was donated to the open group in the 2008 time frame and subsequently adopted by multiple tool vendors so first i wanted to kind of just discuss some of the relationship to the types and archimede what you see is a big difference between their modeling structures and what we're dealing with with in csdm from a dependency analysis point of view uh language here for example there's a lot of discrepancies like assignment or realization serving access the language that we use typically inside of the csdm is depends on or consists of we do have a consist of like a parent child's sort of thing so composition kind of reflects that but most of these others don't have a correlation to the entity types that we have and relationship types that we have within cstm first thing i wanted to cover is just a high-level togaf perspective togaf and rtma are both managed by the open group and there is a activity to harmonize the two togaf basically existed well before our command was donated into the open group but there's a lot of similarities but some differences too that needed to be taken care of so this is going to be covering uh mostly the arctic side i'll cover toe gap in a later session but just to give you an idea how the togaf areas stack up what we see is in the motivation and strategy area we have capabilities being associated here so that's the the main area that associates those two the business layer is really on foundation and to sell consume and that's really understanding what the business is and how they consume or need to consume business services so a lot of those areas to define a company business you know hierarchy locations things like that are all part of business architecture which we see over in those two domains in csdm the application layer is correlates back to the business application and application service layers okay so that's how you build your applications what they consist of from a systems diagramming point of view the technology layer consists of the various technologies that you're using within those systems and that correlates to the whole orange area managing technical services of csdm so the underlying cis the types of technologies this layers and the stack database technologies networking all of that correlates the technology layer in togaf as we get into arctimate we will look at the these entities one at a time and i'm pretty open for feedback on these this has been my experience talking to a number of customers on how they're mapping and there's some tool vendors out there that are performing these mappings as well so this is just a quick review and of course there's some caveats here that you have to take care of because there's semantic differences and structural differences in how we manage the data well the first one is to discuss here is really the location hierarchy and that does more or less correspond to the locations the foundations domain here that we have in cstm so that's a good mapping the the one that kind of is interesting is business service to business service now you would think that would be a one-to-one but it's not business service in the case of the um the way archimede uses it and defines it is what you provide your businesses okay so it's the business out point of view and it's uh more or less how how the business provides services to customers the contract uh largely overlaps with the car contract definition uh but uh not entirely that's more on the external side as well so not what would what i would say is a contract between internal consumer and provider of a service and product maps over loosely to the foundation's domain product models and products there now again this is more products as sold to customers not necessarily internal there is a csm module that has a better correspondence to this called product sold and that was that would be a better mapping here i just don't have the csm data model as part of that but you can look at that up in the product views application service largely maps over to business applications and what i do know is that application services can be hierarchical so in a way you can support the application service hierarchy by supporting layers of application services on the archimate model so this gets a little confusing because we have two different types versus a and and we have a different connotation for application service in our own model but you could get away with that the next area that maps pretty well is data object so that data object does map here pretty well and facility facility largely maps to the use of location hierarchies in the csdm so that's a that's a pretty good mapping there next area is equipment so if we look at the equipment maps over largely to these cmdbc eyes that's where the physical infrastructure kind of comes in and nodes also overlaps there too so we don't make a big distinction in the cmdb as a ci between nodes and devices and equipment so all of that is is part of that particular area system software this is an interesting one system software basically is uh described in the product table as software product models but also down in cis when it's instantiated and in the as is system so given that rcma is more of a planning tool i would say it correlates more strongly over the product models in foundation but uh of course with there is an instantiation which we capture as as is services with regards to the configuration items technology interaction is best mapped over to the application service so there's kind of two aspects of app services that deals with the technology interaction and how those various layers or system entities interact and uh of course that does then confuse a little bit with the ultimate model with regards to the application service definition already there so there's there's almost three uses of app services uh in the arctime model they they it out the next area is technology service which largely maps to the technology services we have over in csdm there is no breakdown of offering i suppose you can decompose the technology services into their offerings using a uh decomposition rule but that that would be product dependent on what you're using to manage archaic models so that would be a possible but it wouldn't be all that easy uh communication network also maps over to the application services as we actually when do service mapping you can identify uh the communication between application services uh so that's largely captured here so this has been the arc mapping to csdm uh obviously we didn't cover every element of the model there are some other things like capability that maps pretty well um but there are so a lot of differences in definition here too so hopefully this has been of help and uh look forward to feedback if you have your own mapping that you come up with or if you have any questions thank you very much