Cross-framework mapping
This matrix consolidates the findings from the TOGAF, DoDAF, ArchiMate, and Gartner pages. It supports analysis and exchange-rule design but is not itself a data-transformation profile.
How to read the matrix
Each cell gives the closest concept, mapping type, confidence, and a short explanation. Abbreviations are:
- D — direct;
- P — partial;
- C — composite;
- A — absent;
- N/A — not applicable;
- H / M / L — high, medium, or low confidence.
“N/A / H” for Gartner means high confidence that the public approach does not provide a suitable formal type for a metamodel comparison. It is not a statement about Gartner tools or subscription research.
All SAF objects
| SAF object | TOGAF | DoDAF / DM2 | ArchiMate | Public Gartner approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actor | Actor + Role + Organization Unit + Stakeholder — C / H: SAF combines bearer, role, and organization. | Performer + Person Type + Organization Type + Role — C / H: several DM2 perspectives. | Business Actor + Business Role; sometimes Stakeholder — C / H. | Stakeholder and architect/leader roles — P / M: no shared public actor type. |
| Channel | Business Service delivery mechanism + interface/location — C / M. | Interface + Service + Resource Flow — C / M: depends on channel nature. | Business Interface; Path for a technical route — P / H. | No explicit type is published — A / M. |
| Service | Business Service — D / H when the outcome boundary matches. | Service — P / H: emphasizes provided access and support for activity. | Business Service — D / H. | Outcome/value; an EA service catalog means something else — P / L. |
| Process | Process, sometimes Function — P / H: SAF has no separate function type. | Activity and sequences of Operational Activities — P / H. | Business Process — D / H. | Process and Value Stream — P / H: thematic, not metamodel mapping. |
| Capability | Business Capability — D / H. | Capability — D / H. | Capability — D / H. | Business capability / capability-based planning — D in meaning / H, without an exchange format. |
| Information Object | Data Entity + business information content — C / H. | Information + Data + Resource — C / H. | Business Object + Data Object + Representation — C / H. | Information/data assets and data journey — P / M. |
| System | Composition of Logical/Physical Application Components and services — C / M. | System as Performer/Resource and its composition — P / H. | Application Collaboration, Grouping, or a composition of Application Components — C / M. | Application/technology portfolio and platforms — P / L. |
| Component | Logical or Physical Application Component — P / H. | System part, Performer, or decomposed Resource — P / M. | Application Component — D / H. | No universal public type — N/A / H. |
| Interface | Information System Service + contract/access point — C / M. | Interface and Resource Flow endpoint — P / M. | Application Interface — D / H. | Metamodel level is not published — N/A / H. |
| Integration | Interaction, interface matrix, and data flow — C / H: usually an artifact or extension. | Resource Flow + Exchange + interacting Performers/Services — C / H. | Flow/Serving/Triggering + interfaces/services — C / H: there is no Integration element. | Integration as a solution-architecture aspect — P / L. |
| Deployment | Physical Application Component + Physical Technology Component + environment — C / M. | Performer/Resource at a Location and solution configuration — C / M. | Artifact + realization of Application Component + assignment to Node — C / H. | Delivery/implementation environment — N/A / M. |
| Compute Resource | Physical Technology Component and Technology Service — P / H. | System/Materiel/Facility as Resource — C / M. | Node + Device + System Software — C / H. | Technology foundation/platform/infrastructure portfolio — P / L. |
| Network Segment | Technology Components + Location + communications topology — C / M. | Communication path + Resource Flow + Location — C / M. | Communication Network or Path — D/P / H. | Technical detail is not publicly typed — N/A / M. |
Canonical relationship groups
| Group | SAF | TOGAF | DoDAF / DM2 | ArchiMate | Public Gartner approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value and services | Actor receives service; uses channel; channel provides access; process realizes service. | Business Services, value, and related actors/processes; usually several metamodel relationships — C / H. | Services, Performers, Activities, and Capability; recipient outcome is narrower than in SAF — C / M. | Business Service, Business Interface, Serving, and Realization — C / H. | Outcomes, value proposition, and EA service catalog; no formal relationships — P / M. |
| Processes and capabilities | Process requires capability; system supports capability. | Capability, Process/Function, Application Components, and traceability artifacts — C / H. | Capability, Activities, Performers, Services, and Systems — C / H. | Capability, Business Process, Application Service, and Realization/Serving chains — C / H. | Capability-based planning and value streams — P / H, without a published grammar. |
| Applications and interfaces | System consists of components; component exposes interface; integration connects endpoints. | Application Components, Information System Services, interface catalogs/matrices — C / H. | Systems/Services, decomposition, Interfaces, and Resource Flows — C / M. | Composition/Aggregation, Assignment, Application Interface, Serving/Flow — C / H. | Portfolio, platforms, and solution architecture — N/A / M for precise semantics. |
| Information exchange | Process operates on object; integration transfers object; technical form represents business object. | Data Entities, data lifecycle, and data-dissemination artifacts — C / H. | Data and Information Viewpoint, Resources, Exchanges, and Resource Flows — C / H. | Access, Flow, Business Object, Data Object, Representation, and Realization — C / H. | Information dimension, data usability, and data journeys — P / M. |
| Placement and infrastructure | Deployment realizes component and is hosted on resource; resource connects to segment. | Physical Application/Technology Components and environments — C / M. | Systems/Resources, Locations, configurations, and flows — C / M. | Artifact, Application Component, Node, Device, System Software, Communication Network — C / H. | Technology foundations and portfolio modernization — N/A / M for a formal crosswalk. |
| Ownership and governance | Actor owns significant object; governed maturity records source, state, and verification. | Stakeholders, organization, governance, repository, principles, and compliance — P / H; broader than SAF. | Authority/organizational context, process ownership, configuration management, and provenance — P / M. | Actor/Role, Assignment/Association, and Motivation; the governance operating model is external — P / M. | Adaptive governance, enterprise principles/standards, distributed architecture roles — P / H. |
Profiles and maturity
SAF profiles and maturity levels cannot be renamed directly as concepts from the other approaches:
| SAF dimension | Closest mechanism | Why it is not equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Startup → Stable business → Enterprise | TOGAF tailoring; DoDAF Fit-for-Purpose; ArchiMate language profile/viewpoint; adaptation of Gartner's EA operating model | SAF changes the recommended set of modeled objects, while the other mechanisms tailor a method, data, language, or function. |
| Catalog → Connected model → Governed model | TOGAF repository/governance; rigorous DM2 data; ArchiMate validation; Gartner adaptive governance | SAF assesses relationship completeness and governance quality of one model, not maturity of the whole architecture capability. |
In practice, an organization selects two independent coordinates: how rich and governed the SAF model is, and how formal the external architecture approach is.
Usage rules
- Preserve the source SAF object identifier in every transformation.
- Record the selected type, abstraction level, and version of the target approach explicitly.
- For partial and composite mappings, retain the transformation rule rather than only a class name.
- Do not invent objects for concepts that are absent merely to achieve formal parity.
- Test reversibility on a real example before automating exchange.
- Treat Gartner mappings as analytical themes, not an import schema.
Sources and access limitations are collected in the research source register.