1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) 1.1 Revision Task Force

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: uaf-rtf
  • Issues Count: 14

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UAF11-14 Ovierview picture (UAF Grid Overview) UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-13 Constraint uses wrong name UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-12 conformsTo is missing UAF 1.0b1 open
UAF11-11 Add a 3-way Resource Traceability Matrix as a standard view UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-10 Interoperability and Interchange Testing; LFL Issue #4 (11 September 2017) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-9 Support Extensibility and Specialization of Architectures (Inheritance and Extension of Architectures; LFL Issue #3 (11 September 2017) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-8 Increase DoDAF Conformance – PES Implementation; LFL Issue #2 (11 September 2017). UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-7 Proof of DoDAF Conformance – Meta Model – DM2; LFL Issue #1 (11 September 2017). UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-6 Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-4 Add the element ResourceRoleKinds to the relevant diagrams in the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-5 Make the relationship between the definition Statemachines (currently implicitly related to UML statemachines) and the definition of ResourceStateMachines more explicit for readers of the UAF. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-3 Make the relationship between UML composition and aggregation (for the information model) and the use of whole/part in the UAF more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-2 Make the relationship between UML and the decomposition of Activity based elements more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-1 Make the relationship between UML and BPMN for the representation the BPMN Start Event and End Event more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open

Issues Descriptions

Ovierview picture (UAF Grid Overview)

  • Key: UAF11-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    The Ovierview picture (UAF Grid Overview) indocated that two view specifications (Op-Tr and Sc-Tr) have been removed between the beta 1 and beta 2 issues. However, in the actual specification both views are still present.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:51 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:47 GMT

Constraint uses wrong name

  • Key: UAF11-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    Constraints OwnsProcess.* should be renamed to OwnsRiskInContext.*

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:08 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:57 GMT

conformsTo is missing

  • Key: UAF11-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    It seems that the stereotype conformsTo is adopted from UPDM since it is still present in many of the diagrams. However, the stereotype (an extesion of a depedency?) is never defined.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b1 — Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:53 GMT

Add a 3-way Resource Traceability Matrix as a standard view

  • Key: UAF11-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    Add a 3-way Resource Traceability Matrix that includes function->Operational Activity->Capability where the matrix intersection displays the associated Capabilities.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:59 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:02 GMT
  • Attachments:
    • Example.xlsx 30 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet)

Interoperability and Interchange Testing; LFL Issue #4 (11 September 2017)

  • Key: UAF11-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

    "UAF 1.0 has not been subjected to interoperability and interchange testing ..." See attachment for details

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:36 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:36 GMT
  • Attachments:

Support Extensibility and Specialization of Architectures (Inheritance and Extension of Architectures; LFL Issue #3 (11 September 2017)

  • Key: UAF11-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

    "Dean Ristani [KONSTANDIN.RISTANI@forces.gc.ca], the Canadian Co-Chair of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Architecture Capabilities Team (NATO ACaT), also Canada Chief Architect DND, suggested that UAF architectures would be much more useful if there were a standardized way to build a very general architecture in a specific domain/area (possibly a Reference Architecture), to “inherit” it, and to specialize it as the context or occasion demands...." See attachment for details.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:34 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:34 GMT
  • Attachments:

Increase DoDAF Conformance – PES Implementation; LFL Issue #2 (11 September 2017).

  • Key: UAF11-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

    "A. Theory and Level Two DoDAF Conformance. The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) is required to conform to the Department of Defense Architecture Framework Version 2.02 (DoDAF 2.02) . References include OMG UPDM 3.0 RFP as well as internal UAF 1.0 References. DoDAF 2.02 defines two criteria for conformance (1) DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) and (2) the Physical Exchange Specification (PES).... ". See attachment for details

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:32 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:32 GMT
  • Attachments:

Proof of DoDAF Conformance – Meta Model – DM2; LFL Issue #1 (11 September 2017).

  • Key: UAF11-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

    "A. The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) is required to conform to the Department of Defense Architecture Framework Version 2.02 (DoDAF 2.02). ..." See attachment for details.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:30 GMT
  • Attachments:

Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM

  • Key: UAF11-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Entered on behalf of Torsten Graeber

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:09 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:09 GMT

Add the element ResourceRoleKinds to the relevant diagrams in the UAF DMM

  • Key: UAF11-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Submitted on behalf of Torsten Graeber in response to comments made by UAF group to queries previously submitted queries made by Torsten Graeber, June 2017

    System (specialisation of resource architecture) and Software, Hardware (specialisation of physical resource) are disjoint. No whole/part relationship for common superclass ResourcePerformer (or its superclasses) found. Or is ResourceRole to be used for this? UAFP describes ResourceRoleKinds, but they are not included in the DM2.

    Yes, Whole-Part is derived from the UML MM. Resource Roles are contextualised usage of ResourcePeformer and there is an Enumerated Type, ResourceRole Kind(Part, Component, Used Configuration,Used Physical Architecture,Human Resource, Platform, System, Sub Organization,Post Role, Responsibility Role,Equipment, Sub System Part,Hosted Software,Artifact Component,Natural Resource Component, Other) in the MM but this is not shown on the diagram. An issue will be raised to reference and show this on the diagram.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:03 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:08 GMT

Make the relationship between the definition Statemachines (currently implicitly related to UML statemachines) and the definition of ResourceStateMachines more explicit for readers of the UAF.

  • Key: UAF11-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Submitted on behalf of Torsten Graeber in response to comments made by UAF group to queries previously submitted queries made by Torsten Graeber, June 2017

    ResourceStateDescription can be assigned to ResourcePerformer and all subtypes. It is considered to be a state machine. However, no definition of state machine given

    Yes, the definition of Statemachines is derived from the UML MM.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:06 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:06 GMT

Make the relationship between UML composition and aggregation (for the information model) and the use of whole/part in the UAF more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document.

  • Key: UAF11-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Submitted on behalf of Torsten Graeber in response to comments made by UAF group to queries previously submitted queries made by Torsten Graeber, June 2017

    No evidence found to show structure of InformationElement, or any of its superclasses. However, Figure 6-14 of the example shows InformationElements with relationships. What is the UAF concept for this?

    Yes. Aggregation and composition relationships of types are implicitly derived from UML MM.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:00 GMT

Make the relationship between UML and the decomposition of Activity based elements more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document.

  • Key: UAF11-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Submitted on behalf of Torsten Graeber in response to comments made by UAF group to queries previously submitted queries made by Torsten Graeber, June 2017

    No evidence found in UAF M2 that supports decomposition of activities. Reviewed elements: OperationalActivity->Activity->MeasurableElement->UAFElement. Potentially OperationalActivityAction is the intended concept (see e.g. Figure 11-20 in the UAF example).

    Yes, it is implicitly derived from the UML Metamodel which allows the decomposition and reuse of Operational Activities as OperationalActivityActions.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:57 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:57 GMT

Make the relationship between UML and BPMN for the representation the BPMN Start Event and End Event more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document.

  • Key: UAF11-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Submitted on behalf of Torsten Graeber in response to comments made by UAF group to queries previously submitted queries made by Torsten Graeber, June 2017

    Not clear how end and start point are identified. However, Figure 6-10 shows a BPMN example with events. What is the UAF concept used here?

    Yes, it is implicitly derived from the UML metamodel (Initial Node and Final Node) and the BPMN Metamodel (Start Event and End Event) upon which the UAF M2 for operational process is based. If required we can make It explicit in the UAF M2

    Think it also affects sample model doc, dtc/2017-05-13

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:52 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:52 GMT