I’ve just been thinking that your metamodel could be used at two different levels:

1. M3 = MOF M2 = Enterprise-architecture metamodel M1 = architecture model M0 = real world

The benefits of this are your intentions to eliminate as many constraints as possible, while still leaving a well-formed model with a repository and modal logic. However it will be difficult for most people to model in as it is a higher level of abstraction.

Alternative

2. M4 = MOF M3 = Enterprise-architecture metamodel M2 = A more restrictive metamodel M1 = Model M0 = Real world

This would allow people to model a more restrictive framework with some more concrete rules. This doesn’t conform to your original intentions, but would help people who aren’t able to think in the higher level of abstraction.

An implementation like this would be similar to the dual nature of SPEM, which can be implemented as either a metamodel or a UML profile.

I just had a read of this post. I was wondering how relevant the ideas are here to your latest thinking? Some of the ideas such as a means to produce modal logic seem aligned with your posts in the last few months. However in analysing the anatomy of ArchiMate you expressed a belief that OMG’s MOF wasn’t the best framework.

Strangely enough I’m one of those people who’s interest is piqued by this post.

Cheers,
Anthony