Proper tool supported metamodel definition
As several released versions of ArchiMate have had errors (e.g. models not following the metamodel or missing relationships), the definition of future Archimate versions would benefit from using any metamodeling tool:
- Changes to the language could be tested (not just creating metamodel) but also using it. This is also important when considering backward compatibility, as well as when providing examples to the Archimate specification document showing that the models actually follow the metamodel (which has not been the case in the past).
- Language definition could not only cover the traditional metamodel (e.g. MOF) but also cover constraints (covering derivation too) as well as concrete syntax/notation. Now they seem to be handled separately cause extra effort to define and check.
- Language definition could be exported to generally easily readable formats (e.g. html pages).
All these would greatly improve the quality of the language and then its acceptance. Please note that use of metamodeling tool creating formal specification would not mainly support tool developers, but mostly language developers in this community as definition itself would become a model (a model is something we all believe here when creating models of enterprise architectures too). See several candidate tools reviewed at https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00923386 that would help in metamodeling.