Introduction
Enterprise architects rely on ArchiMate to model and communicate complex organizational systems. However, challenges arise when attempting to exchange these models between tools such as Sparx Enterprise Architect (EA), Archi, BiZZdesign, and others. Despite ArchiMate’s goal of standardization, tool-specific implementations, incomplete XMI interoperability, and varying support for the standard lead to frustrations and inconsistencies in model sharing.
This article explores the core challenges in exchanging ArchiMate models across tools, with a focus on Sparx EA and Archi, and provides practical guidance to mitigate interoperability issues.
1. The Promise of ArchiMate and the Reality of Tools
ArchiMate, developed by The Open Group, offers a formal specification for modeling enterprise architecture. It is meant to be tool-neutral. Yet, in practice, every tool implements the standard slightly differently:
- Sparx EA: Supports ArchiMate 3.x but stores models in proprietary databases with tool-specific metadata and tagged values.
- Archi: An open-source tool closely aligned with the ArchiMate specification, but often lacks full fidelity in round-trip exchanges.
2. XMI Exchange: A Standard with Loose Implementation
XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) is the official format for exchanging models, but:
- EA uses extended XMI that includes tool-specific elements
- Archi exports to Open Exchange Format (OEF), not standard XMI
- Round-tripping is error-prone: diagrams are lost, stereotypes misalign, and relationships break
3. Common Interoperability Issues
When transferring models between EA and Archi, users often encounter:
- Loss of diagram layout: Graphical layouts are not preserved without tool-specific extensions
- Tagged value mismatches: EA uses custom tags not recognized by Archi
- Missing relationships: Association types and directionality often get lost
- Semantic drift: Different interpretations of Motivation, Strategy, or Implementation layers
4. Comparing Exchange Methods
| Feature | Sparx EA | Archi |
|---|---|---|
| XMI Support | Partial, tool-specific | No native import/export of Sparx XMI |
| Layout Preservation | Possible within EA tools | Lost when imported from EA |
| Semantic Compliance | Good, with custom extensions | Very strict to spec, lacks flexibility |
5. Workarounds and Best Practices
- Use common intermediate formats: Convert EA XMI to Open Exchange Format using XSLT scripts
- Limit modeling constructs: Stick to core ArchiMate elements when planning for interoperability
- Avoid over-customization: Reduce use of tool-specific stereotypes and tagged values
- Document transformations: Provide traceability maps for all model exchanges
- Use plugins or scripts: jArchi scripts or EA add-ons can help map concepts explicitly
6. A Collaborative Workflow Strategy
Instead of relying on automated exchange, define workflows where different tools serve different phases:
- EA for detailed architecture modeling and governance
- Archi for lightweight collaboration and rapid prototyping
Exchange only semantically relevant components (capabilities, applications, motivation elements), and synchronize updates manually when necessary.
7. Toward Improved Standards
The Open Group has acknowledged the limitations and is working on enhanced Open Exchange Formats (OEF). For now, organizations must manage expectations and define strict modeling disciplines to maintain interoperability.
Conclusion
Interoperability between Sparx EA and Archi remains a challenge due to differences in implementation and export mechanisms. However, with proper modeling discipline, use of intermediate formats, and clear workflows, it is possible to maintain consistency and semantic alignment across tools. The key is not to expect plug-and-play compatibility, but to architect for exchange from the outset.
Keywords
ArchiMate, Sparx EA, Archi, Model Interoperability, EA Tools, XMI, Open Exchange Format, ArchiMate Compliance, UML Exchange, Enterprise Architecture, jArchi, Tagged Values, EA Diagram Loss, Semantic Modeling, TOGAF Exchange