Legacy Issue Number: 13563
Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
There should be some additional constraints for the DoDAF/MODAF stereotypes to indicate that they're replacements for Core stuff.
Document Issue UPDM (OMG Beta) Jan 2009
Source Phillip AstleArtisan Software Toolsphillip.email@example.com
Rationale At the moment it looks like its Core + DoDAF/MODAF stereotypes instead of the DoDAF/MODAF stereotypes replacing some Core stuff
Resolution: Implement tag on Architectural Description type by MODAF/DoDAFAdd constraints to Architectural to filter MODAF /DoDAF applicable stereotypes. Relates to alias.Action AndriusWe'll add some text to the document to provide guidance on what the DoDAF/MODAF alias' are and on their usage (i.e. it's recommended to not mix and match terminology).
Reported: UPDM 1.0b1 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — UPDM 1.0
Implement tag on Architectural Description type by MODAF/DoDAF
Add constraints to Architectural to filter MODAF /DoDAF applicable stereotypes. Relates to alias.
We'll add some text to the document to provide guidance on what the DoDAF/MODAF alias' are and on their usage (i.e. it's recommended to not mix and match terminology).
PULLED FROM VOTE 7 - NEED revote (Enumeration ArchitectureFrameworkKind
list NAFs as one of its literals
NAF should be removed from the literals list as NAF is not part of this submission. NAF does use different terms in some places and has some item in it (such as ServiceNeedline for instance) that apparently used in NAF but not MODAF, i think we just open ourselves upto a whole can of worms by allowing people to type an architecture NAF when we do not officially support it and it is outside the scope of the original requirements.)
Do not include Views/Viewpoints/Requirements in L0, allow it for vendors to implement them as they want to. Do not interchange this part of model as part of UDPM.
Add SoaML usage to L0.
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT