System Security

John Zachman’s use of the basic interrogatives to define a system lends itself to alternative analysis. One of these cases is system security. When it comes to security there are only four acts you can commit: Select, Insert, Update and Delete. However, you can commit these acts for each of the Zachman Framework Focuses: Data, Network, Motive, Process, People, Time and each of the Zachman Perspectives: Conceptual, Contextual, Logical, Physical, Mechanical, Instantial. What you have as a product is not just a security table, but a security cube. Below is an example of a security table defining 24 possible violations:

systemsecurity.jpg

A security cube would define 4 x 6 x 6 = 264 possible violations. It should be added that violations do not always work in isolation. For example spyware is a procedural insert and data selection. How many cells in the security cube would be affected if a plane crashed into one of your facilities?

It is also important to note that preventing snooping (or sniffing) is often an effective way to prevent the other three manipulation operations.  What they can’t see can’t hurt you.

Advertisements

Change or Die

Kotter has hit on a crucial insight. “Behavior change happens mostly by speaking to people’s feelings,” he says. “This is true even in organizations that are very focused on analysis and quantitative measurement, even among people who think of themselves as smart in an MBA sense. In highly successful change efforts, people find ways to help others see the problems or solutions in ways that influence emotions, not just thought.”

more…

Binding the Dimensions

Now that we have defined each of the dimensions we can begin building a dimensional model.

In the above representation we only have the independent entities and the intersection entity. To take it one step further we have to introduce the association entities. I’ll discuss that in my next post.

Visualization Methods

This is just so you know that there is more than one way to visualize each of the interrogatives.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Universe of Systems

Okay, so in the last two posts I talked about Moffett’s Universe of Discourse. We saw that the Universe has two facets: Process and Audience. I’m going to change the term “Audience” to “Persona”, a term that Alan Cooper likes to use and which I also prefer.

Systems can have many dimensions. Earlier in this blog I pointed out that the most generic dimensional models had four, six or twelve facets. Let’s first look at the six dimensional model called “the basic interrogatives” used by John Zachman in his framework.

Zachman’s dimensions–which he calls “focuses”–are as follows:

  1. Persona
  2. Instance
  3. Step
  4. Node
  5. Event
  6. Goal

Persona is the people who employ the system whether they are internal or external to the business. Instance is the value that the system uses for structure or content. Step is the action performed by the system. Node is the location a system occupies. Event is an occurrence used to meter time. Goal is the motive of the system.

Each of these discrete entities has a pluralarity of instances that are associated to one another in three possible ways. Let’s look at that next.

Persona’s belong to groups. A single persona may be a supertype to several persona subtypes. Each of these are one to one relationships. A persona may associate with members of its own group which is a recursive relationship. A persona may associate with members of another group which is a one to many relationship. Finally, a persona may be part of an “ExtraGroup” that resolves the association in a many to many relationship.

assocpersona.jpg

The next facet which is discussed by Moffett in his Universe of Discourse is function. But it really isn’t function. He is actually talking about the deliverable of the function. Therefore, we will talk about an instance. Each instance is not a single measure. An instance is a collection of measures which are related one to one. When Moffett talks about recording, he is talking about capturing one unique instance for each of the human senses. When Moffett talks about reporting he is talking about an instance that is associated recursively. When Moffett talks about generalizing he is talking about comparing one instance in one table to instances in another table. When talking about Theorizing Moffett is resolving a many to many relationship between two tables of instances.

Now that we’ve dealt with both of the dimensions dealt with by Moffett. Let’s look at the remaining four dimensions.

The third dimension of the basic interrogatives is step. We like to think of step and process as  repeatable, however each iteration of a process is a unique three dimensional navigation through a three dimensional network of steps. We are accustomed to programming with steps, decisions and loops, however, the relational model presents us with a whole new way to think about programming if we are willing to do so. SQL can be used in place of procedural language and you do not flowchart it in the same fashion as a procedural language.

Fourth is the dimension of nodes. Nodes belong to networks and networks can relate to nodes within their “family”, nodes outside their family and nodes from families that have complex many to many associations.

assocnode.jpg

The fifth of the dimensions this model provides us with is event. If we look at the event dimension carefully in any complex system, we can see that time is not linear. Time navigates a three dimensional network of events.

assocevent.jpg

The final dimension of our model is goal. When we look at a recursive association between goals we are talking about operations. When we associate one goal to many goals in a different table we are using tactics. When we resolve a many to many association between goals we are employing strategy.

Now, having our six dimensions we see that we have six three dimensional networks which intersect for each “transaction” or “observation”. We’ll look at this further in the next post.

The Universe of Discourse

 jamesmoffett.jpg

This is another framework I often refer to. I call it the “Moffett Framework” based on James Moffett’s explanation of the “Universe of Discourse”.

interactionsmall.jpg

I found it can be represented graphically:

dikwaudiencesmall.jpg

Where the vertical axis is speaker and audience and the horizontal axis is time and senses. I will discuss this further in a latter post.

Systema: Zachman Framework Abstract

john_zachman_small3.jpg

The Zachman Framework I have seen diagrammed often. However, I have not found the diagrams any more enlightening than the original diagrams by John Zachman. The reason is because the diagrams referred to other diagramming conventions instead of revealing the underlying concepts being described by the diagrams. Click on the thumbnail below to view what I consider an appropriate abstraction of the Zachman Framework:

zachman-framework-abstract.jpg

I have submitted this diagram to John Zachman and he has welcomed it.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »