13 Aug 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda Announcements: –This week: DoDAF Plenary – Dave post all except AT&L on WG site (tutorials and briefings) and add DoDAF,

13 Aug 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda• Announcements:

– This week:• DoDAF Plenary – Dave post all except AT&L on WG site

(tutorials and briefings) and add DoDAF, MDR, IDEAS, IDEAS blog site and login info to weekly announcement

– Upcoming:• FAC 17 Aug – readahead summary of 2.02

– New References: • none

• 2.02 Finalization (26 Aug) Status• Prioritization for 2.03• Others:

– JMT Use Case (Vicense)– Capability model (Terebesi)– SoA High-Pri issues (Ellis) – inc. SoAML terms

submitted by Dandashi– Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex– Partitions– Def of CapabilityPhase PLEASE BE ATTENTIVE TO MUTE

WHEN NOT SPEAKING

DM2 DoDAF COIIn Ver 2.02 26 26 0 0

In Progress for 2.02 6 3 3 0In Progress for 2.03 26 25 0 1

Unassigned 85 67 18 0Consult IDEAS Group 15 14 1 0

Defer 92 84 5 3Rejected 0 0 0 0

No Action Required 0 0 0 0250 250

CI

Currently Queued for 2.03# Title Description108 BPMN Take a look at BPMN

114 Bussiness Rules and Dave Hay Download and distribute David Hay’s papers on representing business rules as data to the Data TWG.

115 SBVR Download and distribute the OMG SBVR model to determine the best way to represent rules.141 SoA Execution Context Rule, Activity, Performer, Resource Flow, Before-After relationships145 AV-1&2 "template" AV-1&2 "template"168 Subtypes and partitions Need to de-overlap the subtypes

333GeopoliticalExtent both a Resource and a Location

GeopoliticalExtent is currently a subtype of Resource and Location. This should be changed so that GeopoliticalExtent is a subtype of Location and has an intersection with Resource

342 Desired Effect in SoA Example of Desired Effect and actual effect in SoA

383 Rules and Contexts

Are there examples of Rules that don't have spatio-temporal extent? For example, does the Constitution exist separate from any printed copy? Should the context of a Performer WRT a rule constraining an Activity be generalized? Rules and superrules? See SBVR WRT rules, operative rules, and enforcement.

393 SOAML Verify DM2 covers SOAML and represents it correctly.

395 Prescription of "role", basis of authority Possibly to OV-4 command relationships discussion

396Is Vision truly distinct from DesiredEffect?

They both have to do with a Resource (state)

397How does a ServiceChannel distinguish itself from activityResourceOverlap?

Should be not just a relationship, but the actual physical connection.

448 Dispositional vs Categorical Properties Maybe has to do with M3 Capability Configurations distinct from Capability456 Rules tied to Measures and Activities Rules constrain what Activities? Don't all Rules have Measures?460 UPDM 3 Element intersection has duplicate names for place1Type and place2Type

471ServiceDescription desribes ServicePort, not Service

ServiceDescription contains all the information relating to a service but it is linked to a ServicePort not a Service

477 SoAML Concepts Need to verify that DM2 concepts and relationships cover and are consistent with SoAML

478 OASIS SOA RAF Concepts Need to verify that DM2 concepts and relationships cover and are consistent with OASIS SOA RAF

480 System vs Service Is there an example of a Service that is not a System? The way System is defined -- A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements -- is pretty broad. Are there any Services that don't fit that?

481Mandatory Service Descriptions and Ports

How to signify mandatory in the LDM

488 Information Traceability to Data1) DIV-2 with attributes, 2) DIV-1 with OV-5 traceability, or 3) DIV-1 concepts and relationships only. What to do with "attribute" relationships and un-named relationships. Question of "standard" rules, relationships, e.g., cardinalities, attributes, unnamed relationships, etc.

490Source / agreement / rule associated representation schemes

508 Forking under Conditions How are decision processes modeled in detail, e.g., to support executable architectures?528 Statemachine diagram Shared state, joint action530 Desired effect aliases Augment defs of outcomes, objectives, effects, goals, result, and desired effects

IDEAS Partition

PartitionThe partition model brings together the disjoint and union models to build the basis for partition. The principle is that if a thing is partitioned, the partitions must be disjoint, and the union/sum/fusion of the partitions is the Thing that was partitioned.

«IDEAS:Powertype»SuperSubtypeType

«IDEAS:Powertype»CoupleType

«IDEAS:Powertype»WholePartType

«IDEAS:Type»SumOfSetOfThings

«IDEAS:Type»UnionOfSetOfTypes

«IDEAS:Type»FusionOfSetOfIndiv iduals

«IDEAS:Powertype»Indiv idualType

«IDEAS:Powertype»TupleType

«IDEAS:Type»PlaceableType

Thing

«IDEAS:Type»Type

«IDEAS:Type»SetOfDisjointTypes

«IDEAS:Type»SetOfDisjointIndiv iduals

«IDEAS:Type»SetOfDisjointThings

«IDEAS:Type»PartitionOfSetOfDisjointThings

«IDEAS:Type»PartitionOfSetOfDisjointIndiv iduals

«IDEAS:Type»PartitionOfSetOfDisjointTypes

«IDEAS:Type»SingletonIndiv idualType

«IDEAS:Type»Singleton

summed

«place2Type»

«place1Type»

fusioned

«place2Type»

«IDEAS:superSubtype»


unioned

«place2Type»



«place1Type»


partType

«place2Type»

wholeType

«place1Type»


«place2Type»{subsets places}

«place1Type»{subsets places}






partitions

«place2Type»



partitions«place2Type»



partitions

«place2Type»







*

places

«placeType»

2..*



Unassigned – Candidates for 2.03 (pg 1 of 6)# Title Description

405Physical and Temporal Measures for SV10b

UPDM example does not have these mandatory elements

406Rename/Def change for desiredEffect structure

Capability connects to Resource via desiredEffectOfCapability which is descended from WholePartType. Capability is descended from IndividualType, i.e. it is the set of sets where the instances of each of the sets it contains are entities that have a capability, i.e. some of these can easily contain individuals that are kinds of performers. There is no argument however concerning the need to have something that connects a capability to a desired outcome in the form of a state of a given resource. As an example taken from the SAR it would seem likely that the end desired effect of a Maritime search and rescue would be that the state of the resources that are in need of rescue is changed from "in need of rescue" to "rescued and safe" and that the state of the resource "a place of safety" is changed from having "no rescued" to "all in need rescued". This would however seem to imply a certain multiplicity as regards the resource. Is this assumption relating to multiplicity correct? The naming of the element gives the impression that it has something to do with desiredEffect which however is not the case. This would seem to require some handling to avoid misunderstandings. An associated element is effectMeasure and MeasureOfEffect. The definition of effectMeasure talks about desiredEffect in spite of the fact that there is no relationship to this element. A change of definition would seem to be in order here.

407 CapabilityType and other Type Types

The use of the powertype CapabilityType requires some further discussion since its utility is less than clear. Based on the definition it is automatically populated by the subsets of a set of sets (capability). The OverlapType descendent activityMapsToCapabilityType is also less obvious especially given its definition: "Represents that an activity was / is / can-be/ must-be conducted under certain conditions with a spatiotemporal overlap of the activity with the condition." which seems to be talking about something different. The fact that the element maps instances of a set of subsets (Activity) to instances of a set of subsets of a set of sets (CapabilityType) also needs to be considered.

408activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType Def

activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType is defined as: " activityType is a member of MeasureType". There is no element named activityType and this implies that the definition needs to be changed. Since Activity is the set of all subsets of IndividualActivity and MeasureType is the set of all subsets of a set of sets of Individual Measures, the connection is less than obvious and the author of this report would like to discuss this.

409 ARO irrelevent pieces

activityResourceOverlap is used to indicate flow of resources from one activity to another. Since Resources are transferred this gives rise to some rather strange interactions given that Performer is a subset of Resource. As a result of this all elements that are subsets of Performer can flow between activities in addition to Materiel and Information (and all of its subsets), GeoPoliticalExtentType (and all of its subsets), i.e. System, Service, PersonType, OrganisationType, Port, ServicePort, GeoPoliticalExtentType (the subsets that are categorized properly). Is this really the intention?

410 Missing relationships

It is generally felt that the number of distinct elements that define how resources can be combined are few and far between and that unless foundational elements are made use of no really complex resource combinations can really be defined properly. The roles that the various entities play in different combinations are also not covered to any extent.

414 WaysThe proposed action is incorrect and leads to ambiguity. Ways are activities (behavior, tactics, etc.), means are systems (materiel facilities, people, etc)

428 EnterpriseCV-3 Capability phasing The text describing the view talks about phases derived from CV-1. What is being referred to here? (since no direct enterprise phase exists in DM2).

429 DependenciesCV-4 Capability dependencies How are dependencies to be modelled. The only way of doing this would seem to require the use of foundational elements, presumably OverlapType. Is this a proper interpretation? If this is the case this needs to be stated explicitly.

430 Singletons In order for the singleton approach to work, the corresponding individual class must be part of a view.


431 Relationships in monster matrixNeed to make sure all pieces of a relationship are part of a view in the monster matrix. In CV-7, if ServicePortDescribedBy is a necessary element why is ServicePort optional?

432 Milestones

Only way to tie Org to Project is through Milestones (Activities) as activityPerformedByPerformer. Is that sufficient?Also, the only measures for a milestone are through activityPerformedByPerformer. Do milestones have performers?Reconsider the def of milestone.

433 SV10 The descriptive text mentions ports. Ports are however neither optional nor necessary for this view.

434 SV5aSV-5a Operational activity to systems traceability matrix It is noted that System as an element is neither optional nor necessary in this view. How is this traceability to be depicted in this case?

435SvcV-5 Operational activity to services traceability

It is noted that Activity is only shown as an optional element which seems strange given the name of the view.

436 Capability BoundaryThe text describing the view states that OV-2 can be used to express a capability boundary. How is such a boundary defined?

437 XML idPotential issue - id attribute is defined as String. This forces first character to be alpha. Some ids come from DBs and are numeric

438 Maps ToConcept needs to be teased out. Currently using OverlapType with annotation to describe ordering of place positions.

439activityResourceOverlapSuperSubtypeOfRule

This seems weird to be a supersubtype since the super and sub are different types (Type and tuple type)

440 Why Before After? Why do you need before after if you have temporal extents?

449 Ind. PersonIt has been stated previously that IndividualPerson is to be considered as meta-data. It is however still shown as part of the Performer data group. Does this mean that the use of IndividualPerson has changed?

450 rulePartOfMeasureType

The element rulePartOfMeasureType is defined as: "A couple that represents the whole part relationship between types of measures and rules." This is strange since it descends from WholePartType which in turn descends from CoupleType. Furthermore MeasureType is a Powertype (of Measure). Measure is a set of sets, i.e. MeasureType is the set of all subsets of a set of sets. Rule is also a set of sets. Is an instance of the Rule set, i.e. for example set ruleA, really a part of the a set that is a subset of the set of sets that is Measure?

451 measureOfTypeWholePartType

The element measureOfTypeWholePartType appears in a number of places. Is the intent here to apply a measure onto a rules based approach of the WholePartType concept? Ians comment regarding the inability in general to apply measures to relationships needs to be noted here. Is anything intended to be done as regards this in the future?

452 Additional IDEAS elements

In earlier versions of DM2, notably from October 2009 a significant amount of additional elements were included under the foundation folder in DM2. All of this has since been removed. What was the reason for this? It is the understanding of the author that the items contained acted as grounding for significant portions of the model, needed in order to handle things at Type level.


453 capabilityOfPerfomer

Capability is related to Performer via capabilityOfPerformer. This in turn is descended from propertyOfType which is defined as " A superSubtype that asserts an IndividualType is a subtype of a Property - i.e. it asserts all members of the Individual type "have" a property. Examples: All London Buses are red, All Porsche 911 2.2S have a mass between 900 and 960 kg.". In PropertyOfType <<place1Type>> is Property and <<place2Type>> is IndividualType. In capabilityOfPerformer <<place2Type>> is Performer which is a subset of Resource which in turn is a subset of IndividualType. <<place1Type>> is Capability which is a subset of IndividualType i.e. less restricted than the <<place1Type>> that propertyOfType links to since Property is a subset of IndividualType. The following therefore seems to be a valid question: Why is Capability not a subset of Property?

455 OV-2 Anticipated UsersThe aim of the OV-2 is to record the operational characteristics for the community of anticipated users relevant to the Architectural Description and their collaboration needs, as expressed in Needlines and Resource Flows. (Anticipated users, to us would indicate Performers.)

491 State

The concept of state seems to be missing. While each element from a temporal perspective can be viewed as a state i.e. an IndividualResource for a limited temporal duration can be considered as being in a state. As types of resources are being considered however there would seem to be a need to discuss the types of states that these resources can be in. The temporal dimension is less easy to deal with under these circumstances. This therefore needs further discussion.

492 Powertype

While the model has been modified such that no real powertypes exist that do not have associated individuals that they are a powertype of (previously the case to a very large extent in DM2 2.00) the actual use of powertypes still needs to be considered from a modeling perspective. A Powertype has a very strict definition, it is the set of all subsets that can be created from a set of either individuals or sets. An example of this is ProjectType and Project. Project is descended from IndividualType i.e. it is a set of Individuals. If a modeler creates three instances of the Project set (the equivalent of creating three elements that is given the stereotype <<Project>> namely PrjA, PrjB and PrjC, this implies that the following ProjectTypes automatically exist (see report). The <<ProjectType>> set is therefore equal to: { PrjTpInst1, PrjTpInst2, PrjTpInst3, PrjTpInst4, PrjTpInst5, PrjTpInst6, PrjTpInst7, PrjTpInst8} as soon as new individual projects are created, the powertype is made larger. How does DM2 intend that these should be dealt with by a modeler creating a real model? Obviously only a few of the above subsets have any real use, the powertype however contains all possible subsets. From a meta-model perspective would it not be more clear to identify an element called ProjectCategory as a subset of ProjectType where the modeler is allowed to actually create categories as needed. Such an approach would give the individual modelers more control and since this argument can be put forward for all Powertypes in DM2 something similar could be done there as well. The Powertypes, when they are used can be viewed as abstract entities, never to be instantiated.

493 OverlapWill overlap/ OverlapType ever be harmonized with the IDEAS foundation since at present they are not the same?

495 desiredEffectWholeResourcePartTypeIn the latest version of the model desiredEffectWholeResourcePartType has been moved to the side, i.e. it is no longer situated within an inheritance hierarchy. What purpose does this element have? It seems consistently to be in the wrong color in the model.

496 MeasureRange and MeasurePointWhy have MeasureRange and MeasurePoint (integrated from IDEAS foundation up until the latest version), been deleted? (see also 2.6 in the report)

497 Measures Why have measureOfIndividual been treated differently from MeasureOfType (see 2.6 in the report).

498 Rules There is a need to get final confirmation regarding the rules described in paragraph 2.7 of the big report.

499 Naming and Desc Will the DM2 Naming and description pattern be brought in line with the IDEAS foundation?503 Org/OrgType WP(T) Performer Relationship missing - Org/OrgType Part Of Performer505 TV and StdV How to relate to contraints in DISR

506 LocationType Measurese.g., you want to say a High Mountain is > 3000 ft. Does raise issue of interpretation of a Type being a typeInstance to Measure.


511 How to categorize Arch Desc

describedBy and Arch Desc are used tie all the bits of a view/model together.is there a good way to identify an architectural description as a particular model/product. you can name the arch. desc. anything - "my OV5b". the exemplar can be anything (could tag it as "OV5b"). Some enum or subclass? or is there some official guidance about that?

512make the full inheritance taxonomy machine-accessible somehow, like in the XSD

currently, only ties back to Ideas foundation. Is needed for OWL expriements

513Partridge Services Questions & Comments

See emails in R&R folder for details

515 Performer Flows and Tools

516Service Access to Resource or Performer

517 Powertype DefinitionThe definition for “Powertype” seems a bit garbled (“A Type that is the is the set (i.e., Type) of all subsets (i.e., subTypes) that can be taken over the some Type.”

518 Business Aspect of Services And how they're reflected519 Description Scheme is missing Need to add to Naming pattern and class hierarchy

520 Individual PersonIf needed only for metadata, does not need to be structured so remove. If intended only for AV-1, how would you restrict?

521 Service Description SpecializationIf you have a ServicePort, you need a Service. The only way to insure this is to make a specialized relationship and make it mandatory for the service views.

522 Denormalized DB

Consider denormalizing name and description on the core objects – activity, capability, performer, system, etc. What I have found is that by having only the ID column on the core objects, and making the name and description “properties” associated objects, it seems unnecessarily complex to do just a simple query to pull a list of names and descriptions for a given object type, much less cross reference it against a related object – say systems and the activities they perform. That query alone is like a 10 table join – or more (I got side-tracked halfway through and then gave up). Thus I would like to request that the DM2 work group consider adding name and description to the core objects. The benefit being that I think it makes the PES database far more usable by analysts and more readily adoptable by the tool vendors. (And by the way, I understand the logic behind making “Name”, “namedby”, “NameType”, “describedBy”, “descriptionType”, etc. all individual objects in and of themselves. I’m not challenging the logic. I get it. I’m simply suggesting that in the interest of usability and “supportability”, I think this would go a LONG way towards making the PES more usable for most folks.)

523 Business vs SoA Service524 personTypePartOfPerformer How can a Person Type be part of a Person Type?525 Reification levels diagram

529 Objectives vs Desired Effects

During our email discussions all members of the UPDM group have converged on the same position regarding enterprise phase and project. There is a large unanimity on this topic from people coming from different viewpoints. I have looked at documents from the DoD* that reinforce the position that “capability planning” is linked to strategy. The debate is about the clarification of “desired effect” the conclusion being that “objectives are truly the basis of military planning” (see attached document).Consequently, when we say “capability” in this paper, we mean: the ability to achieve an objective in a military operation.We do not reject the notion of an effect. Physical and behavioral conditions matter, and the definition above does not preclude you from considering effects as defined by Joint Publication 3.0. However, objectives are truly the basis of military planning, and defining capabilities in that way is more straightforward.The UPDM/MOD approach provides a formal solution for this (capabilities, enterprise phases, and capability requirements for each phase). The traditional “requirement/acquisition management” has to be reconsidered because of the introduction of a new time dimension. Therefore, the time for the enterprise/strategy planning has to be assessed and aligned with the time for capability configuration availability. Mixing these two dimensions may prevent from achieving effective EA governance processes.


531 Capability relationshipsShould Capability be a tuple and should it link to measureOfTypeActivityPerfomedUnderCondition? Since all it does it relate desired effects and activities. See diagram from 2010-06-11.

532 ConditionsConditions as defined in UJTL and DM2 are different from Conditions and Preconditions as needed in SoA.

533 EA RolesCurrently they are Manager, Architect, and Developer. Recommend: Change: "Developer" to "Tool Developer"; "Manager" to "Process Manager"; Add: Analyst, Integrator, Architecture Project Manager, SME

534 Definitions of important non-model terms For example, reification, time-wise as well. Where in DoDAF is this defined?

535 SV-1 Inconsistencies Name, one line description, description, and detailed description are inconsistent.536 Security Attribtes Group SAG is actually a type of Information. Think about the markings on a document.537 desiredEffectDirectsActivity How does a desired effect guide/direct Activities?

538 Not all Performers can desired an effect Probably limit to Oganizations, Organization Types, and Person Types

539 Guidance and Rule Guidance serves no purpose in DM2. It should either be deleted or linked to something. 540 Performers in OV-2 Performers in OV-2, not Orgs / Org Types / Person Types

541 PersonType part of Individual Performer Need Individual Person part of Individual Performer to do correctly

542 Representation Type is a Resource Type Information Type is a Resource Type but forgot to show Representation Type

543 Pedigree type Pedigree is a type of Information that describes the workflow544 Pedigree activities Pedigree Activities are Individual Activities545 Singleton Ind Type Need Singleton Ind Types to emphasize singleton

546 Properties and MeasuresNeed to complete adoption of IDEAS model for this, basically using inheritance to allow all individuals and individual types to have properties and measures

548 Name def doesn't match model549 Action Should be in data dictionary

550 Plans

a plan is not an activity or an aggregation of activities (or actions or processes or doings or anything). Planning is the activity (action, process, doing); a plan results from the planning activity (action, process, doing). It’s conceptual, a recipe to be followed in the future, etc. The JC3IEDM gets this somewhat right: A PLAN is a proposal for putting into effect a command decision or project; it represents the preparation for future or anticipated operations.

554Using OverlapType to associate Rules to MeasureTypes and Measures

We are using a generic OverlapType to go from the TemporalMeasure to Rule (to be able to perform the duration calculation) and then from the Rule to the PerformanceMeasure (the actual calculation).

555More Specific association for MeasureOfDesire

We have the actual measure PerformanceMeasure relating to MeasureOfDesire with a generic CoupleType. Can we find more specific associations?

Unassigned – Candidates for 2.03 (pg 6 of 6)

# Title Description

556 Activity to Measure Apart from ConditionAlso, how about a direct association between Activity (or activityType) and Measure, so we don’t have to go through the Condition just to get to the measure.

557 Model CategoryThese are really presentation categories. And their relationship to the models s/b many-many; many views have multiple valid ways of being presented.

560 UPDM 16 Definition of ServiceChannel mentions "requisitions", there is no such concept in DM2 ! Please explain

564 AV-1 and AV-2 for DARS

565 GTP and GTG consistency with StdV's

566 Monster Matrix review

especially:1. desiredEffect the tuple is required in many products, but we tend to use the resource state instead.

2. ov5a has no optional elements. that really limits things.

3. most SvcV products require port even though we alway use serviceport instead.

567 Powertypeinstance cardinalities why is place2 0..1?

568Conceptual Overview diagram needs updating

569 Individual for each Individual Type Now that we have a Type Type level for everthing, should we do the same for the Ind.570 Data Dictionary Could use a def review571 Type Type names Agree on naming convention for type types572 Singleton Types why only some singletons called out?

573 RepresentationType / ResourceRepresentationType cannot be an IndividualTypeType and a Resource (IndividualType). This occurs because InformationType is needed in ResourceFlow

575Relationship between Capability and Performer should be derived, not declared

23 July 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda• Announcements:

– This week:• Semantic Interoperability Workshop – Vocabulary

OneSource – distribution mechanism, AV-2, PES – is that the best vocabulary representation – or would OWL be better – Ian knows how to do this, did it before

• INCOSE International Symposium• NR-KPP WG

– Upcoming:• No WG 30 July or 6 Aug – McDaniel vacation;

resume 13 Aug• FAC 3 Aug – readahead summary of 2.02• DoDAF plenary 12 Aug

– New References: • UPDM/bock-ontological-behavior-modeling-

dm2.pdf– A companion paper is available to OMG members at:

http://doc.omg.org/ad/09-08-05

• 2.02 Technical Cutoff– Nomination of Defers (post 2.02’s) &

Unassigned’s urgently needed for 2.02 (Dave and Greg)

– 2.02 in-progress’s nominated for post-2.02 (WG)• Others:

– JMT Use Case (Vicense)– Capability model (Terebesi)– SoA High-Pri issues (Ellis) – inc. SoAML terms

submitted by Dandashi– Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex– Partitions

PLEASE BE ATTENTIVE TO MUTE WHEN NOT SPEAKING

DM2 DoDAF COIIn Ver 2.02 15 14 1 0

In Progress for 2.02 38 35 2 1




CI

2.02’s in Progress(page 1 of 2)

109 Service layers In Progress for 2.02114 Bussiness Rules and Dave Hay In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version115 SBVR In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version129 Timeliness In Progress for 2.02141 SoA Execution Context In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version145 AV-1&2 "template" In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version168 Subtypes and partitions In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version179 Performer vs CapabilityConfiguration In Progress for 2.02326 Example XML docs In Progress for 2.02332 Changing a resource versus producing it In Ver 2.02333 GeopoliticalExtent both a Resource and a Location In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version342 Desired Effect in SoA In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version365 Information and Data: In Ver 2.02383 Rules and Contexts In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version384 XSD documentation In Progress for 2.02393 SOAML In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version395 Prescription of "role", basis of authority In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version396 Is Vision truly distinct from DesiredEffect? In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

397How does a ServiceChannel distinguish itself from activityResourceOverlap?

In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

401 OV-2 Locations In Progress for 2.02

402 External Performer In Progress for 2.02In MODAF, would be known resource. Private action and public actions in Joint action.

404 Information or DomainInformation for SV1, SV10b In Ver 2.02448 Dispositional vs Categorical Properties In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

454Condition/ActivityPerformableUnderCondition optional for SV1

In Ver 2.02

456 Rules tied to Measures and Activities In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version457 Agreements, Guidance, Rules have parties In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

2.02’s in Progress(page 2 of 2)

460 UPDM 3 In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version467 Measures and tuples In Progress for 2.02 Serious470 Person WPT In Progress for 2.02 Serious

471 ServiceDescription desribes ServicePort, not Service In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

473 UPDM 16 In Progress for 2.02477 SoAML Concepts In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version478 OASIS SOA RAF Concepts In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version480 System vs Service In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version481 Mandatory Service Descriptions and Ports In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version486 ARO as two couples In Ver 2.02

487 Agreement constrains activityPerformedByPerformer In Ver 2.02

Rule is the super of Agreement but not all Agreements are Rules. And Agreement is only a part of a Rule. Related to Rules formal relationship to Activity. 2.02

488 Information Traceability to Data In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version489 APBP redundancy with APUC In Ver 2.02 2.02

490Source / agreement / rule associated representation schemes

In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

494 Info Type and Data Type In Progress for 2.02

501 Capability Phase <> Enterprise Phase In Ver 2.02

Capability should be a dispositional type whereby it doesn't have start and stop times

508 Forking under Conditions In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version

509 How to indicate methodology-dependent subclasses In Ver 2.02

526UPDM Markup the enterprise phases should be Project phases

In Ver 2.02

528 Statemachine diagram In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version530 Desired effect aliases In Progress for 2.02 defer to next version547 Units In Ver 2.02551 Placeable types In Ver 2.02552 TI between Couple Type and PT In Ver 2.02553 Overlap In Ver 2.02558 visionIsRealizedByDesiredEffect In Ver 2.02559 Keep number of diagrams manageable In Progress for 2.02

Sendpart

Receivepart

Flow process

Dave

Ian

Dav

e’s

Doc

umen

t, O

rigDave’s

Document, Copy 1, in flow state

Copy

Copy and SendD

ave’

s D

ocum

ent,

copy

1

Dav

e’s

Doc

umen

t, co

py 1

Dave’s Doc Ind Type = {Orig, Copy1, Copy2, …}

Dave’s Doc Ind Type Orig = {Orig}

Dave’s Doc Ind Type Copies = {Copy1, Copy2, …}

Can go into very precise modeling using temporal parts (states)

time

Joint Action: Fatma Selling Cup to Dave

Buyer(PersonType)

Seller(PersonType)

Fatma(Person)

typeInstance

TransferHandover

HandtakeDave(Person)

typeInstance

Transfer

Handtake

Handover

ActivityTypes

Cash (ResourceType) Cup (MaterielType)

time


– This week:• DoD MD Working Group – Guy Caron• DoD COI Forum – Guy Caron• INCOSE International Symposium, to be held 12 - 15 July

Chicago• FAC cancelled

– Upcoming:• Small group for DODAF table for CJCSI 6212.01F (DODI 4630

I&S applies to everything)– New References:

• DoD Governance / Architecture Types Matrix

• NIST Conrad Bock OMG brief• System source def – (Gene Bellinger): A system is an

entity that maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts. -- Putman

• Preparation for 2.02 Technical Cutoff:– Recap of process to 26 Aug – production, QA, VDD for

FAC, publish to sites (MDR, dko, cio-nii.defense.gov, SIPR)– Review In-Progress AI’s– Defers, Unassigned urgently needed for 2.02?

• See Walter Pierce email

• Others:– JMT Use Case (Vicense)– Capability model (Terebesi)– SoA High-Pri issues (Ellis) – inc. SoAML terms submitted

by Dandashi– Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex– Partitions

PLEASE BE ATTENTIVE TO MUTE WHEN NOT SPEAKING

DM2 DoDAF COI

In Ver 2.02 4 4 0 0

In Progress for Next Version 53 49 3 1




CI

Ver 2.00 and 2.01 AI’s archived

405 Physical and Temporal Measures for SV10b

Materiel NeedlineExchangeItem/Artifact

nonICmarkings Attribute

PerformerRuleConstrainsActivityOverlap SubjectOfResourceConstraint

PhysicalMeasure MeasureOfPerformance

Plan ProjectSequence, MilestoneSequence

PolygonArea LocationType

RateThroughput MeasureOfPerformance

releasableTo Attribute

RuleConstraintOfActivityValidUnderCondition SubjectOfOperationalConstraint

ServiceEnablesAccessTo ServiceConsumer

ServicePort ServiceInterface

Skill Competence

"DM2 Concepts, Associations,

and Attributes"Composite Definition

AV-1

AV-2

OV-1

OV-2

OV-3

OV-4

OV-5a

OV-5b

OV-6a

OV-6b

OV-6c

SV-1

SV-2

SV-3

SV-4

SV-5a

SV-5b

SV-6

SV-7

SV-8

SV-9

SV-10a

SV-10b

SV-10c

PhysicalMeasure

A category of measures of spatio-temporal extent of an Individual such as length, mass, energy, velocity, …

n o n o o n n o o o o n o o o o n n

TemporalMeasure

A type of measure of time n n o o n n o o o o n o o o o n n

405 Physical and Temporal Measures for SV10b

Materiel NeedlineExchangeItem/Artifact

nonICmarkings Attribute

PerformerRuleConstrainsActivityOverlap SubjectOfResourceConstraint

PhysicalMeasure MeasureOfPerformance

Plan ProjectSequence, MilestoneSequence

PolygonArea LocationType

RateThroughput MeasureOfPerformance

releasableTo Attribute

RuleConstraintOfActivityValidUnderCondition SubjectOfOperationalConstraint

ServiceEnablesAccessTo ServiceConsumer

ServicePort ServiceInterface

Skill Competence

Move

Reported Location Reported Condition

Ma

ritim

e R

escu

e U

nit

MR

T S

ea

rch

er

Reassure Victim Apply First Aid Recover Victim

Determine Destination

Name

Updated Condition

Transport

Updated Location

An Event or Trigger in DoDAF 2 is akin to a near-zero duration Activity

Bounding box differentiates internal from external Performers

Legend:

Person Type

Time

Activities performed by Performer

Performer (aka Capability Configuration)

Activities

Information

Consume (Activity)

Produce (Activity)

Just a diagramming shortcut

Before-After

Resource Flow

406 Rename/Def change for desiredEffect structure

class Goals

Performer

IndividualType

Resource

TemporalWholePartType

desiredEffectWholeResourcePartType

OverlapType

desiredEffect

Property

Measure

+ numericValue: string

MeasureOfEffect

measureOfType

effectMeasure

MeasureOfDesire

desiredFutureResourceState

desirer

howMuchDesired

subtype

supertype

desiredEffect A desired state of a Resource

Objective

A clearly defined, decisive, and attainable end toward which every operation is directed. An objective is a specific, time-targeted, measurable, and attainable target that an enterprise seeks to meet in order to achieve its goals.

Desired Result, Effect, Outcome, Consequence

(See above) (BMM Concept Catalog): An end that is a specific time-targeted, measurable, attainable target that an enterprise seeks to meet in order to achieve its goals.Dictionary Basis: something toward which effort is directed: an aim or end of action [MWUD 'objective' (1)] Note: Compared to a goal, an objective is: short-term; not continuing beyond its time frame (although such time frames can be cyclical – monthly, quarterly, etc.). objective quantifies goal Definition: objectives provide the basis for measures to determine that progress is being made towards a goal.

407 CapabilityType and other Type TypesIDEAS Domain Class Hierarchy

MeasureType

+ units: string

InformationType

DataType

NameType

RepresentationType

CapabilityType

ActivityType

IDEAS Capability

IndividualType

Activity

Type

CapabilityTypeOverlapType

activityMapsToCapabilityType

activityMapsToCapabilityType Represents that an activity was / is / can-be/ must-be conducted under certain conditions with a spatiotemporal overlap of the activity with the condition.

408 activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType DefIDEAS Measure

Type

MeasureType

+ units: string

superSubtype

activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType

Activity

IDEAS Measure

superSubtype

propertyOfType

measureOfType

activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType activityType is a member of MeasureType

409 ARO irrelevent piecesIDEAS Domain Class Hierarchy

Data

Materiel

System

OrganizationType

Service

Information

Performer

Resource

PersonType

DomainInformation

Port

ServiceDescription

ServicePort

PositionReferenceFrame

GeoPoliticalExtentType

CountryType

RegionOfCountryType

InstallationType

FacilityType

RealPropertyType

SiteType

GeoFeatureType

RegionOfWorldType

ArchitecturalDescription

410 Missing relationshipsIDEAS Foundation for Associations

BeforeAfterTypeOverlapType

WholePartType

couple

namedBy

powertypeInstance

Thing

tuple

typeInstance

describedBy

serviceEnablesAccessToResource

activityPerformableUnderCondition

activityResourceOverlap

activityPartOfCapability

activityPerformedByPerformer

associationOfInformation

activityChangesResource

desiredEffectOfCapability

desiredEffectDirectsActivity desiredEffectIsRealizedByProjectTypematerielPartOfPerformer

capabilityOfPerformer

personTypePartOfPerformer portPartOfPerformer

ruleConstrainsActivity

ruleConstraintOfActivityValidUnderCondition

skillOfPersonType

visionIsRealizedByDesiredEffect

measureOfTypeActivityChangesResource

measureOfTypeActivityPartOfCapability

activityPartOfProjectType

measureOfTypeActivityPerformableUnderCondition

measureOfTypeActivityPerformedByPerformer

ruleConstrainsActivityPerformedByPerformer

measureOfTypeActivityResourceOverlap

activityResourceOverlapSuperSubtypeOfRule

activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType

axesDescribedBy

measureOfTypeCondition

coordinateCenterDescribedBy

resourceInLocationType

linePartOfPlanarSurface

locationNamedByAddress

measureOfIndividualPoint

pointPartOfLine

pointPartOfPlanarSurface

measureOfTypeProjectType

regionOfCountryPartOfCountry

measureOfTypeResource

rulePartOfMeasureType

measureOfTypeWholePartType

Foundation For Associations

WORKING DRAFT

facil ityPartOfSite

sitePartOfInstallation

EndBoundaryType

StartBoundaryType

TemporalBoundaryType

measureOfIndividualEndBoundary

measureOfTypeEndBoundaryType

measureOfIndividualStartBoundary

measureOfTypeStartBoundaryType

desiredEffectWholeResourcePartType

Type

TupleType

WORKING DRAFT

wholePart

TemporalWholePartType propertyOfType

superSubtype

CoupleType

measureOfType

representedBy

desiredEffect

measureOfIndividual

propertyOfIndividual

informationPedigree

effectMeasure

individualResourceInLocation

measureableSkillOfPersonType

activityMapsToCapabilityType

servicePortDescribedBy

503 Org/OrgType WP(T) Performer

tuple

CAPABILITY

type

ACTIVITY

type

CONDITION

type

MEASUREtuple

activityPerformableUnderCondition

tuple

measureOfTypeActivityPerformableUnderCondition

type

ResourceTemporalState

tuple

measureOfTypeResource

State of Resource

To produce a desired effect (State of Resource)

CAPABILITY MODEL

Many-to-many

Many-to-many

(t3, )Taliban peace loving

state

Make peace

(t1, t2) (Taliban are

mean)

Whole-life of Taliban

(t3, )Taliban rule the world

today future

Taliban in skinny state

question

Says: apuc motapuc

001: (002, 003)

004: (001, 005)

006: (007, 004: (001: (002, 003), 005)

002

003

question


– This week:• NR KPP WG – Table E revision, deeper dive for data, not view – need to

know what data being used in the analysis and decisions; 11 ?’s; subWG– Upcoming:

• INCOSE International Symposium, to be held 12 - 15 July Chicago. • MDR WG and COI Forum• FAC next Tuesday

– New References: • In CJCSI folder:

– Working draft of CJCSI 6212.02F– DoDAF brief to NR KPP WG

• Urgent AI for 2.02– 546 -- Properties and Measures Need to complete adoption of

IDEAS model for this, basically using inheritance to allow all individuals and individual types to have properties and measures

– ARO• Sub-working group for DoDAF models descriptions cleanup• New submissions by members:

– SV-1 QA Problem Status Update• Preparation for 2.02 Technical Cutoff:

– Review new Action Items, 66 of them – 7 teed up in read-ahead• Others:

– JMT Use Case (Vicense)– Capability model (Terebesi)– SoA High-Pri issues (Ellis) – inc. SoAML terms submitted by Dandashi– Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex– Partitions

PLEASE BE ATTENTIVE TO MUTE WHEN NOT

SPEAKING

In Ver 2.00 231In Ver 2.01 72

Other Done 1In Progress for Next

Version61

Rejected 0No Action Required 0

Unassigned 77Consult IDEAS Group 14

Defer 89545

ParticularIndividuals MeasuresParticularIndividualTypes Measures

IDEAS DM2 Diagrams

Measure

+ numericValue: string

Type

IndividualType

Property

superSubtype

propertyOfType

measureOfTypemeasureOfIndividual

typeInstance

propertyOfIndividualThing

Individual

Also related to 408 activitySuperSubtypeOfMeasureType Def441 The Measures model in DM2 differs from the Measures model IDEAS450 rulePartOfMeasureType451 measureOfTypeWholePartType467 Measures and tuples497 Measures506 LocationType Measures

“Forrest’s cube”

“x”

MeasureTypeunits

“weight in lbs”

Forrest’s cube {individuals | measure =1 & measureType = weight in lbs}

Concept

R e so u rce F low

T e m p o ra l

R e la tio n sh ip

B o xe s * a nd L in es(in c . a n n o ta tio ns a nd "sw im lan e s ))

A llo ca tionO w n e rsh ipS u pp o rtsC o m m a n dsIn te rfa ces / in te ro p era tes

M a trice s(in c. in de n te d te x t)

p a rt-o fp ro p e rty ("h a s ")p e rfo rm s

O b je cts ** ins id e o th e rs(p a rt-o f, "h a s", p e rfo rm s)

C o nd it ion a l Lo g ic

T a b u la r R e so urce F low(in c . a n no ta tio n s)

T re e(in c. in de n te d te x t)

E A P re sen ta tio n Typ es

AV-1AV-2OV-1OV-2OV-3OV-4OV-5aOV-5bOV-6aOV-6bOV-6cSV-1SV-2SV-3SV-4

SV-5aSV-5bSV-6SV-7SV-8SV-9

SV-10aSV-10bSV-10cSvcV-1SvcV-2

SvcV-3aSvcV-3bSvcV-4SvcV-5SvcV-6SvcV-7SvcV-8SvcV-9

SvcV-10aSvcV-10bSvcV-10cStdV-1StdV-2PV-1PV-2PV-3CV-1CV-2CV-3CV-4CV-5CV-6CV-7DIV-1DIV-2DIV-3

X

*Actually can be any geometric shape, e.g., rectangle, ellipse, etc.** e.g., boxes, text phrases

Re

sou

rce

Flo

w

Te

mp

ora

l

An

no

tati

on

s /

swim

lan

es

Re

lati

on

ship

pa

rt-o

f

pro

per

ty (

"ha

s")

pe

rfo

rms

All

oc

atio

n

Ow

ner

sh

ip (

pa

rt-o

f)

Su

pp

ort

s (o

ver

lap

)

Ap

pli

es-t

o (

pro

pe

rty)

Co

mm

an

ds

Inte

rfac

es

/ in

tero

per

ate

s

AV-1 Overview and Summary Information

Describes a Project's Visions, Goals, Objectives, Plans, Activities, Events, Conditions, Measures, Effects (Outcomes), and produced objects.

AV-2 Integrated Dictionary

Architecture data repository with definitions of all terms used throughout the architecture data and presentations. x

OV-1: High Level Operational Concept Graphic

High-level graphical/textual description of operational concept

OV-2: Operational Connectivity Description

Operational connectivity and iresource flow needlines x o o

OV-3: Operational Resource Flow Matrix

Information exchanged and the relevant attributes of that exchange x

OV-4: Organizational Relationships Chart

Organizational, role, or other relationships among Organizations x

OV-5a: Activity Decomposition Tree

Activities and their decomposition hierarchy. x

OV-5b: Activity ModelCapabilities, activities (operational activities), relationships among activities, inputs, and outputs; overlays can show cost, performers or other pertinent information

x o

Tre

e (

inc

. in

den

ted

te

xt)

Ta

bu

lar

Re

so

urc

e F

low

w /

A

nn

ota

tio

ns

Boxes and Objects Matrices (inc.

Co

nd

itio

na

l Lo

gic

First Pass – High Level

.

.

.

Next Pass – Add Notes

Res

ou

rce

Flo

w

Tem

po

ral

An

no

tati

on

s / s

wim

lan

es

Rel

atio

nsh

ip

par

t-o

f

pro

per

ty (

"has

")

per

form

s

Allo

cati

on

Ow

ner

ship

(p

art-

of)

Su

pp

ort

s (o

verl

ap)

Ap

plie

s-to

(p

rop

erty

)

Co

mm

and

s

Inte

rfac

es /

inte

rop

erat

es

AV-1 Overview and Summary Information

Describes a Project's Visions, Goals, Objectives, Plans, Activities, Events, Conditions, Measures, Effects (Outcomes), and produced objects.

AV-2 Integrated Dictionary

Architecture data repository with definitions of all terms used throughout the architecture data and presentations.

For DoDAF 2 principal concepts (see CDM)

OV-1: High Level Operational Concept Graphic

High-level graphical/textual description of operational concept

OV-2: Operational Connectivity Description

Operational connectivity and iresource flow needlines

Orgs, Org Types, Person Types

Activities, Resources, Metrics

Orgs, Org Types, Person Types

Tab

ula

r R

eso

urc

e F

low

w /

An

no

tati

on

s

Tre

e (i

nc.

ind

ente

d t

ext)

Boxes and Lines Objects inside others (inc. Matrices (inc. indented text)

Co

nd

itio

nal

Lo

gic

.

.

.

To Complete

• Use notes version to add text to end of each model description– Part 1 – purpose in the 6 core processes– Part 2 – DM2 elements– Part 3 – Diagram notes– Part 4 – Reification, traceability, etc. notes

• A new section with generic descriptions, e.g., next slide

Example: Resource Flow Boxes and Lines

Sender / ProducerNOTE 1

Receiver / Consumer

Annotation1NOTE 2

Annotation2...

Resources NOTE 4

NOTE 1: Performer (where the send & receive activities are implied) or ActivitiesNOTE 2: Activities performer by Performer, Performers that perform the Activities, Standards / Rules, Metrics, and/or ConditionsNOTE 3: Annotations can be placed anywhere understandable, some can be done by “swimlanes”, and/or could be described separately in matrices, indented text, or other forms.NOTE 4: Including Resource States

Annotation1NOTE 3

Annotation2...

SV-1 Issues• Name: Systems Interface Description• One liner: The identification of systems, system items, and their interconnections.• Description:

– composition and interaction of Systems– links together the operational and systems architecture models -- a SV-1 may represent

the realization of a requirement specified in an OV-2 -- traceability & reification– there may be many alternative SV models that could realize the operational requirement. –

what does this have with the model description? True of anything– in an “As-Is” architecture, the OV-2 may simply be a simplified, logical representation of

the SV-1 to allow communication of key Resource Flows to non-technical stakeholders – again T&R – part of any xV

– A System Resource Flow is a simplified representation of a pathway or network pattern,

– Note that Resource Flows between Systems may be further specified in detail in SV-2 (why wouldn’t you just do a more detailed SV-1?, SV-2 show’s comms means?) Systems Resource Flow Description and SV-6 Systems Resource Flow Matrix (not just “more detail”, adds details about the resources that flow and measures and rules associated with that resource’s flow).

– Sub-System assemblies– SV-1 may also identify the Physical Assets (e.g., Platforms) at which Resources are

deployed– optionally overlay Operational Activities and Locations – In many cases, an operational activity and locations depicted in an OV-2 may well be the

logical representation of the resource that is shown in SV-1.– The SV-1 is used in two complementary ways:

• Describe the Resource Flows exchanged between resources in the architecture. • Describe a solution, or solution option, in terms of the components of capability and

their physical integration on platforms and other facilities.

SV-1 IssuesDetailed Description:• Either could be modeled first, but usually an iterative approach is used to model these together gradually

building up the level of detail in the System description. • Note that the same type (class) of resource may be used in different contexts in a given SV-1. For this

reason, the tracing of functions to resources is specified in context of their usage (see DM2 for details).• addresses Resource Flows. A Resource Flow, as depicted in SV-1, is an indicator that resources pass

between one System and the other. • In the case of Systems, this can be expanded into further detail in SV-2 Systems Resource Flow

Description.• Interactions are only possible between Systems and Services. • System Resource Flows provide a specification for how the operational Resource Flows Exchanges

specified in Needlines are realized with Systems. • A single Needline shown in the OV-2 Operational Resource Flow Description model may translate into

multiple System Resource Flows. • The actual implementation of a System Resource Flow may take more than one form (e.g., multiple

physical links). • Details of the physical pathways or network patterns that implement the interfaces are documented in SV-

2. • System Resource Flows are summarized in a SV-3b. • The functions performed by the resources are specified in a SV-4, but may optionally be overlaid on the

Resources in a SV-1.• An Operational Viewpoint (OV) suite may specify a set of requirements – either as a specific operational

plan, or a scenario for procurement. • As OV-2 and OV-5 specify the logical structure and behavior, SV-1 and SV-4 specify the physical

structure and behavior • separation of logical and physical presents • The structural and behavioral models in the OVs and SVs allow architects and stakeholders to quickly

ascertain which functions are carried out by humans and which by Systems for each alternative specification and so carry out trade analysis based on risk, cost, reliability, etc.

SV-1 IssuesDetailed Description:• Systems and sub-systems • The real benefit of a SV-1 is its ability to show the human aspects of an architecture, and how these interact

with Systems. • Capability and Performers which is used to gather together systems, assets and people into a configuration,

which can meet a specific capability. • A primary purpose of a SV-1 DoDAF-described Model is to show resource structure, i.e., identify the primary

sub-systems, performer and activities (functions) and their interactions. • SV-1 contributes to user understanding of the structural characteristics of the capability.• The physical resources contributing to a capability are either an organizational resource or a physical asset,

i.e., a system cannot contribute alone (it must be hosted on a physical asset used by an organizational resource of both).

• Organizational aspects can now be shown on SV-1 (e.g., who uses System). • Resource structures may be identified in SV-1 • DoDAF does not specifically use terms such as, sub-System and component as these terms often denote a

position relative to a structural hierarchy. • Any System may combine hardware and software or these can be treated as separate (sub) Systems.

DoDAF V2.0 includes human factors (as Personnel Types and a type of Performer). Should an architect wish to describe a System which has human elements, then Systems, Personnel Types and Performers should be used to wrap the human and system elements together.

• optionally be annotated with Operational Activities, Capabilities, and/or Locations originally specified in OV-2

• shows Systems, Physical Assets and System interfaces for the entire Architectural Description on the same diagram.

• Some Resources can carry out System Functions (Activities) as described in SV-4• these functions can optionally be overlaid on a SV-1. • the SV-1 and the SV-4 model provide complementary representations (structure and function).

SV-1 Content Guidance for Template and Description Streamlining: AI#535

• Severn distinct pieces are currently described. They should be broken out as follows::1. SV-1a Interface Description. The SV-1a describes interfaces

(Resource Flows) between Systems, Services, and/or Person Types. Can have multiple levels of detail.

2. SV-1b Perfomer Configuration. Interface Description plus composition (whole-parts) of Resources involved. If Locations are involved in the configuration, relationships to Resources.

3. SV-1c Functional Allocation. Activities (System Functions) performed by Systems, Services, and Person Types.

4. SV-x Organizational Resources. Shows Resources that are part of (whole-part) Organizations.

5. SV-x Organizational Dependencies. Shows Organizations whose Activities are reified by System Functions (Activities) performed by Performer Configurations.

6. Systems relationship to Capabilities – already in SV-5

7. All views should show traceability to higher-order reifications, other views that constitute requirements, and/or other non-view requirements. This should be restated for just about every model.

Enterprise Architect to DM2 Mapping and Measures Use Case

Dr. David DryerMr. Johnny Yohman

Mr. Walter PierceVisense

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2 July 2010 1st DoD EA COI Data Management Working Group (DMWG) Agenda

• Announcements:– New Members: – This week:

• IDEAS, OMG email trails on Milestones, Projects, PES, XMI, …

– Levine to contact Bailey re XSD generator and IDEAS plugin

– Upcoming:• 12 August 2010 DoDAF Plenary• DARS Users and Vendors Day 28-29 June

– Services to meet re DARS rqmts, DARS “compliant”, put what in DARS, R = repository, registry, or both

– AV-1 XML X DM2

• MDR WG and COI Forum

• New References: – none

• New submissions by members:– N/A

• DoD EA COI Charter– Step through 8320.02G and relate to DoD EA COI– Action Items for next quarter’s meeting

• Others:– TBS

PLEASE BE ATTENTIVE TO MUTE WHEN NOT

SPEAKING

Table C2.T1. Key COI Attributes• Formed to meet a specific data

sharing mission or fulfill a task• Composed of stakeholders

cooperating on behalf of various organizations, with emphasis on cross-Component activities

• Members committed to actively sharing information in relation to their mission and/or task objectives

• Recognize potential for authorized but unanticipated users and therefore, strive to make their data visible, accessible, and understandable to those inside and outside their community.

Relevance / meaning to DoD EA COI• Reuse, compliance (solutions, C&A),

interoperabilty, net-centricity, data sharing, federation, solutions arch standization, … in support of the 6 core processes (JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, CPM, SE, Ops Plng)

• CSA’s, CIOs, Acq’s, inter-agency (at specific reification / meta levels), PM’s,

• Governance, e.g., DTM-93, CJCSI’s 6212.01F & 3170, NCSS, NCDS, DODD/I 4630, Arch DoDI, DISA cross-agency (DHS, NGO’s)

• Visible -- DARS, NCES Enterprise Search, MDR, DISR,

• Understandable -- DM2, UCORE, IDEAS

• Accessible – SSO, Intelipedia (U), … distribution restrictions, aggregation problem, pedigree

Table C2.T2. Primary Responsibilities of COIs• Identify data assets and information sharing

capabilities, both operational and developmental, that should conform to the data strategy goals of NCDS.

• Identify approaches to enable those data assets and information sharing capabilities to satisfy data strategy goals and to measure the value to consumers of shared data.

• Develop and maintain semantic and structural agreements to ensure that data assets can be understood and used effectively by COI members and unanticipated users.

• Register appropriate metadata artifacts for use by the COI members and others.

• Extend the DoD Discovery Metadata Specification (DDMS) (Reference (c)) as required to ensure that COI-specific discovery metadata is understandable for enterprise searches.

• Partner with a governing authority, as appropriate, to ensure that COI recommendations are adopted and implemented through programs, processes, systems and organizations

Relevance / meaning to DoD EA COI• Naval Architecture Repository System

(NARS), MCAE, CADIE, SADIE?, JACAE, AF?, DLA?, AMC?, EISP DB? BEA encyclopedia, TV repository in DISR?…all sorts of other locations, e.g., sharepoints, legacy fileservers – in future DM2 PES XML files

• % completeness, # registered users & level of activity in COI,

• DM2, IDEAS, DoDAF, UCORE-relationship, DDMS-relationship

• DM2 CDM, LDM, PES XSD, and documentation registered in MDR in Arch namespace

• Need to develop discovery use cases, DARS rqmt?, register extensions in MDR, IC? 500-21 IRM 1.0 maps to DDMS 2.0, cross-domain discovery and retrieval

• FAC, Army NCDS ideas (ADTP, Army Data Transformation Plan)

Table C2.T3. Summary Descriptions of COI RolesROLE DESCRIPTION Who / How in DoD

EA COI?

COI Governing Authority

Individual or organization that will review and adjudicate COI conflicts and push for DoD Component implementation and support of COI data sharing agreements. The appropriate governance forums and authorities may already exist and should be leveraged where possible. This role is typically filled by the Mission Area lead, but in the initial stages of operationalizing portfolio management, may also be a Combatant Command or Functional Support Agency (e.g., DLA). The COI governing authority acts as an external champion with authority and cross-COI visibility to affect change. Responsibilities:Identify information sharing problems and COI missionsReview and adjudicate resolution of discrepancies across COIsPromote and endorse COI activities and implement agreements through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Acquisition, and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processPromote COI support to DoD ComponentsReview COI plan of action and milestones (POAM) status and success measures

COI Lead An individual from a specific DoD Component who has been tasked with managing the COI. Generally, the organization leading the COI activity has committed to driving the COI to a data sharing solution and will advocate that data sharing agreements be implemented within DoD Component plans, programs, and budgets. The COI lead helps address internal COI conflicts and issues, keeping the COI on track.The COI lead role may be established on a shared or rotating basis, and should be filled by a functional expert, rather than an IT specialist.Responsibilities:Ensure that appropriate stakeholders participate in COIs via COI working groups, and appropriate representatives participate via the governing authorityLead the COI, including developing and tracking POAMsAct as a primary point of contact (POC) for the COIPromote policies and practices for data sharing and participating in cross-Component COIsIdentify mission-specific success criteria for the COI

COI Stakeholders

Organizations or personnel who have an interest in the outcome of the COI effort. These may not be active participants in the COI, but will likely use and/or benefit from the capability, such as data consumers.COI stakeholders are those who stand to benefit, and those whose processes and/or systems will change, as a result of COI activity.Responsibilities:Promote policies across DoD Components in terms of practices and standards in the implementation areas, including those for data tagging, data access services, and registration of metadata artifactsPromote the reuse of data access services within programs and systemsTrack DoD Component implementation of Reference (a) through COI activitiesEnsure operator/end-user views and needs are represented in COI semantic and structural agreements, contribute to COI requirements gathering processes, and provide feedback on COI-defined information sharing capabilities

Table C2.T3. Summary Descriptions of COI Roles

ROLE DESCRIPTION Who / How in DoD EA COI?

Capability Developers

Personnel or organizations responsible for serving as the technical representative and implementing the data sharing agreements (e.g., data access services), and applying technical approaches (e.g., tools for associating discovery metadata with data assets).Capability developers are the critical COI participants that turn COI agreements and requirements into live information sharing capabilities.Responsibilities:Identify technical requirements for supporting information sharing capabilities (e.g., common tagging tools) and recommend the necessary programming and budgeting changes for supporting them efficientlyParticipate in COI working groups, particularly as they relate to architectures, standards, and technical specificationsIdentify implementation alternatives, including common or reusable services or technical capabilitiesIdentify technical impacts of COI agreements, for example the impact of a data access service on system performance to critical usersImplement and maintain agreed-upon capabilitiesEnsure operator/end-user views and needs are represented in COI semantic and structural agreements

Data Producers

A program, organization, or person that controls, creates, and/or maintains data assets within the Department. These are typically the DoD Component program managers and system owners who provide the resources to implement data sharing agreements within their programs.

Subject Matter Experts

Individuals who represent specific operators and possess knowledge of their business processes.Responsibilities:Ensure operator/end-user views and needs are represented in COI semantic and structural agreementsAdvise the governing authority on subject matter prioritiesPromote use of COIs to solve data sharing problems and advocate for implementation of COI agreementsAssist in the identification of mission-specific value measures for COI success

Duties• COI FORMATION AND

EXECUTION– ESTABLISH AND EVOLVE A

COI

– COI MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

– CAPABILITY PLANNING AND USER EVALUATION

• DATA SHARING IMPLEMENTATION– MAKING DATA VISIBLE

– MAKING DATA ACCESSIBLE

– MAKING DATA UNDERSTANDABLE

– PROMOTING TRUST

• Relevance / meaning to DoD EA COI

13 Aug 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda Announcements: –This week: DoDAF Plenary – Dave post all except AT&L on WG site (tutorials and briefings) and add DoDAF,

Documents

unassigned candidates

timen n oonnoooo noooonn

dodaf plenary dave

orig daves document

daves doc ind type orig

dodaf table

temporal measures

daves doc ind type copies