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

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: uaf-rtf
  • Issues Count: 57

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UAF12-57 Need Operational Capability UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-56 Competence as a "kind of" capability UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-55 Feature "capability" in Resource Domain UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-54 Architecture Management Domain UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-53 Group architecture items into portfolios and portfolio segments UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-52 Knowledge as a strategic asset with critical value to the Enterprise UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-51 Risk concept to be expanded to include more than security risks UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-50 Drivers and Challenges for the architecting effort UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-49 Opportunities to pursue in moving the enterprise towards the target states UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-48 Desired outcomes as “targets” to achieve with enterprise transformation UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-47 Operational Interaction Scenarios view specification diagram is incorrect UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-46 Editorial corrections UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-45 Change the title of this specification in order to reflect its content UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-33 Service Modelling needs to be improved UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-44 Need to identify addtional concept to support Acquistion Ref Model Usage UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-43 Missing Generalization Open Triangle on Association of OperationalPerformer and OperationalArchitecture at OperationalAgent in Figure 8.10 UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-42 Enterprise Phase Concern UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-41 UAF does not comply with “model kind” as defined by ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-40 UAF does not simply agregate terms coming from other AF. UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-39 Need to have terms and definitions formally expressed. UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-38 Enterprise Phase Concern UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-37 Personnel Domain identifier UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-36 The diagrams are not consistent against the legend of colors UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-35 ActualResourceRelationship: The textual description does not fir the connector of the class UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-34 On behalf of the NATO ACAT group, the handling of effects is suggested to be modified UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-32 The constraints for Implements are too strict UAF 1.1b1 open
UAF12-31 The Service Structure View Diagram Should show how services are structured UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-14 Recommended Implementation should include ibd UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-13 Is OrganizationInEnterprise to restrained? UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-30 Enterprise Modeling Language Logo UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-12 Should SubjectOfForecast be an Asset instead of ResourcePerformer? UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-11 Achiever cannot be the same as Desirer UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-29 UAF Profile should be identified as an Enterprise Modeling Language UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-10 Inconsistency between spec and implementation UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-28 SecurityClassificationKind should be linked via a kind end instead of type UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-7 Conceptual mapping between UAF DMM and Archimate elements UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-6 Add the UAF Metamodel on a page UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-5 Actual Risk should be captured in Security Parameters rather than Security Constraints UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF12-4 Add a 3-way Resource Traceability Matrix as a standard view UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-3 Increase DoDAF Conformance – PES Implementation; LFL Issue #2 (11 September 2017). UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-2 Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-1 Add the element ResourceRoleKinds to the relevant diagrams in the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-27 UAF DMM v1.1 has no chapter number UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-26 Security Constraints and Corrective Process UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-21 Two model kinds are addressing modeling of connections UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-25 CapabilityDependency: meaning of the two types of metaclasses need clarification UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-24 Typos on chapter 7.2 Domain Interrelationships UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-23 The scope of the Strategic State view is not clear on the illustrating diagram UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-22 Roadmap model kind: incomplete sentence UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-20 ISO Date Time needs to be refactored UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-19 Performs in Context is confusing UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-18 Exchange Contract UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-17 Capability specialisations are needed UAF 1.1 open
UAF12-16 Inconsistencies in view specifications UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-15 CapabilityForTask, is it redundant? UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-9 The View definition in Annex A are missing stereotypes from the Elements list UAF 1.0 open
UAF12-8 Stereotypes for flowProperties UAF 1.0b2 open

Issues Descriptions

Need Operational Capability

  • Key: UAF12-57
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    To maintain same pattern across layers, and to make a distinction between the "ability to operate" and the ability of the enterprise to achieve outcomes, need to have a separate kind of Operational Capability that is distinct from "Strategic" Capabilities that are relevant in the Strategic Domain.

    See here for discussion about difference between Operational Capabilities and System Capabilities and Organizational Capabilities (ie, competence): https://www.sebokwiki.org/wiki/Enterprise_Systems_Engineering_Background

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:14 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:14 GMT

Competence as a "kind of" capability

  • Key: UAF12-56
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Competence is a kind of capability possessed by people and organizations. Make Competence a kind of Capability:
    Organizational Resource <exhibits> Competence

    Then the Competence can be shown on the Capability Roadmap for the Enterprise.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:09 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:09 GMT

Feature "capability" in Resource Domain

  • Key: UAF12-55
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Need to add a kind of capability called Feature that can be associated with a resource:

    Resource Performer <exhibits> Feature

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:07 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:07 GMT

Architecture Management Domain

  • Key: UAF12-54
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Should create a new Architecture Management Domain to collect management-like views and add new ones.

    This would help provide better support to portfolio management and transformation planning:
    -Capture this additional information on front end for support to Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) activities
    -Capture Architecture Governance decisions and directives
    -Portray architecture change metrics with goals and achievement levels

    Can collect other views into this area:
    -Can move Summary and Overview into this Domain, as well as Dictionary
    -Can move Requirements and Standards views into this Domain (since these are in practice used as means to manage changes to the architecture)

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:10 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:10 GMT

Group architecture items into portfolios and portfolio segments

  • Key: UAF12-53
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Portfolio management involves changes to the future plans and current deployments.When to add new capabilities? When and where to change operations or change resources?. When to retire legacy resources, or re-purpose them?

    Overall “score” for alternative portfolio configuration is extent to which Outcomes are achieved for the enterprise as a whole. Possibilities for change come from identified Opportunities and their associated Risks. Also these come from identified new/modified Capabilities and their associated Effects.

    Portfolio is normally divided into Portfolio Segments
    -Could be divided by timeframe (eg, “epochs” such as near, mid, far term)
    -Could be divided by “color of money” (eg, R&D, acquisition, operations)
    -Could be divided by mission area

    Currently using Whole Life Configuration as the Portfolio elements in EA model. WLC is a “set of Versioned Elements”. But would be more convenient to have a different model element for “Portfolio”.
    -Alternative Portfolios would be examined for most cost-effective combinations
    -Each Portfolio option is a provisional “set of Versioned Elements”
    -Then the selected combination gets promoted to a new Whole Life Configuration (becoming the new “baseline” for program planning and scheduling)

    Portfolio (kind of) Project does not have the necessary semantics with the features and relationships enumerated below.

    WLC element only gives part of the picture of what is in the Portfolio.
    -Acts as a “collection” of things with an associated Gantt chart for deployment timelines
    -Does not tell us who “owns” that collection of things in the Management Accountability sense
    -A Portfolio can consist of multiple Whole Life Configurations

    Portfolio needs to have the following features:
    -Things it is delivering (eg, in its Whole Life Configurations)
    -Who runs it (ie, the Actual Organization)
    -Particular programs within it (eg, actual Projects or project elements)
    -Alignment with budget elements, assigned Opportunities and Risks, etc
    -Assigned responsibility for execution of particular Enduring Tasks (and associated Capabilities)
    -Accountability towards achieving Effects (eg, MOE target levels) for a given time period
    -Can be assigned responsibility for certain Missions, Enterprise Goals and Enterprise Phases
    -Can be jointly managed with another Enterprise for shared Operations and Resources

    Might be that Portfolio could be a kind of Whole Life Enterprise (ie subtype) that has the features and relationships noted above

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:07 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:07 GMT

Knowledge as a strategic asset with critical value to the Enterprise

  • Key: UAF12-52
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Information and Data Assets. “Asset as applied to Security views, an abstract element that indicates the types of elements that can be considered as a subject for security analysis.” Limited in the model to making these assets “secure”.

    Need to add Knowledge as a Strategic Asset. Key element in doing Portfolio Management. Much value of the Enterprise can be tied to the Knowledge that it owns or controls. Some capabilities deal with acquisition, utilization, selling, and protection of Knowledge.

    Assets need to be expanded for use beyond just the Security Domain

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:01 GMT

Risk concept to be expanded to include more than security risks

  • Key: UAF12-51
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Opportunities to be pursued can present additional Risks to the enterprise or to its stakeholders. Need to expand Risk to cover more than security risks. Risk Mitigation should be more general than that which performs security process or satisfies security control (shown in presentation).

    Opportunities can be negated by associated Risks. Important to balance new Opportunities with associated Risks. At enterprise level, Opportunity Management can have greater impact than Risk Management.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:00 GMT
  • Attachments:

Drivers and Challenges for the architecting effort

  • Key: UAF12-50
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Drivers identified from various (usually external) driving documents: Strategic plans, legislation, regulations, treaties, agreements, charters, etc.

    Not all Drivers are relevant. Filtered by Enduring Tasks owned by the Enterprise to ensure direct relevance to its Mission. Drivers are prioritized based on relative importance to achieving Enterprise Goals and Vision.

    Relevant Drivers present Challenges to the Enterprise. Challenge is a “demanding or stimulating situation” or a “call to engage in a contest or fight”.

    Challenges are conditions that apply to the Opportunities for Enterprise Transformation. Challenges represent the obstacles or roadblocks to success. Assessed for their feasibility in being addressed. Assessed for relative impact on transformation and achieving enterprise goals.

    Properly accounting for the motivational factors that drive change in the Enterprise

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:55 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:55 GMT

Opportunities to pursue in moving the enterprise towards the target states

  • Key: UAF12-49
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Opportunities represent a “possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances”. Opportunities are identified and prioritized based on their ability to address the Challenges identified in the upfront identification of enterprise Drivers. Opportunities for changes to the enterprise and its underlying operational and resource assets are identified to serve as basis for assessing architectural tradeoffs.

    Opportunities can present additional Risks to the enterprise or to its stakeholders. Need to expand Risk to cover more than security risks (see other issue on expanding use of risk beyond security). Risk Mitigation should be more general than that which performs security process or satisfies security control (shown in attached file).

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:52 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:52 GMT
  • Attachments:

Desired outcomes as “targets” to achieve with enterprise transformation

  • Key: UAF12-48
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Need a way to specify the “final consequence or product” for the enterprise as a whole. Alternative capabilities and effects (using MOE’s) are assessed for ability in meeting the set of desired Outcomes for the Enterprise as a whole and for understanding the trade space. When capability target measures are established based on the Analysis of Alternatives, then an Enterprise Phasing structure is devised and Enterprise Goals are assigned to each phase.

    Cannot use Enterprise Goal for this since it is tied to a particular Enterprise Phase. Need to have a separate element to capture Outcomes for the Whole Life Enterprise. Outcome is related to “measures of value” or “measures of utility” (hence, it must be measurable). Aim is maximize for MOU for a given set of resources.

    Outcome linkages needed:

    • Actual State elements linked to relevant Effects
    • Operational Activities linked to relevant Effects
    • Effects linked to relevant Outcomes and Missions
  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:47 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:47 GMT
  • Attachments:

Operational Interaction Scenarios view specification diagram is incorrect

  • Key: UAF12-47
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE Systems ( Daniel Wild)
  • Summary:

    Figure 8:15 - Operational Interaction Scenarios shows elements associated with Resource Interaction Scenarios, not Operational Interaction Scenarios. The Elements list below the figure is correct.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 08:14 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:44 GMT

Editorial corrections

  • Key: UAF12-46
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Oliver Kellogg)
  • Summary:

    General observation:
    Throughout the dtc/19-06-16 DMM PDF there appears a broad right margin in light grey.

    Individual observations:

    p4 1.4 Related Documents

    The specification includes a metatmodel and description as separate documents.

    -> metamodel

    Other appendicies are also provided as separate documents.

    -> appendices

    p5 Type 4 Conformance

    A tool demonstrating model interchange conformance can import and export conformant XMI for all valid UAFP models.

    -> can import and export conforming XMI

    p59 View Specifications::Personnel::Roadmap::Personnel Roadmap: Evolution

    Definition: provides an overview of how a organizational structure changes over time.

    -> an organizational

    p89 View Specifications::Actual Resources::Structure::Actual Resources Structure

    Concerns: the analysis.e.g. evaluation of different alternatives, what-if, [...]

    -> the analysis, e.g. evaluation

    p157 ResourceParameter Description

    A type that represents inputs and outputs of an Function.

    -> a Function.

    p164 ResourceMessage Description

    Message for use in an Resource Event-Trace which carries any of the subtypes [...]

    -> in a Resource Event-Trace

    p166 top, DataRole Description

    A usage of DataElement that exists in the context of an ResourceAsset.

    -> in the context of a ResourceAsset.

    p192 Domain MetaModel::Actual Resources

    Concerns: the analysis.e.g. evaluation of different alternatives, what-if, [...]

    -> the analysis, e.g. evaluation

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:42 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:44 GMT

Change the title of this specification in order to reflect its content

  • Key: UAF12-45
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: THALES ( Jean-Luc Garnier)
  • Summary:

    As long as we can read "The profile specification documents the language architecture in terms of UML profiling mechanism." in section 1.1 of UAFP V1.1, I strongly recommend to rename the title of this specification to read "UML Profile for UAF". I.e. The specification does aim at providing a language-independent specification to implement a UAF Profile from any kind of language or from scratch.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Fri, 29 May 2020 15:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:38 GMT

Service Modelling needs to be improved

  • Key: UAF12-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:
    • Capability in service domain is different than the Capability in the Strategic domain
    • Contextualized use of services is not currently available. A concept of Contract needs to be considered
    • Connection between Service Specification and Operational Performer/exchange/interface. We need to say that the exchange between Operational Performers is identifying a need of a service or is using already existing service
    • Straight forward way to connect Required/Provided Service Layer to Operational and Resource concepts
      -Provide a way to show how Resources use Services
  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Sat, 18 Jan 2020 09:05 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:51 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to identify addtional concept to support Acquistion Ref Model Usage

  • Key: UAF12-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    Identify and update the DMM to reflect new concepts and relationships to existing concepts. Additionally, identify all impact to existing diagrams.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:43 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:43 GMT

Missing Generalization Open Triangle on Association of OperationalPerformer and OperationalArchitecture at OperationalAgent in Figure 8.10

  • Key: UAF12-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Sandia National Laboratories ( Michael Mamanakis)
  • Summary:

    In the View Specifications::Operational::Structure::Operational Figure 8:10 - Operational Structure
    OperationPerformer and OperationalArchitecture are generalized by OperationalAgent and so the generalization end open triangle arrowhead is missing at OperationalAgent on the association between the three elements.
    The correct generalization open triangle arrowhead is shown in the definition of OperationalPerformer on Page 135 in Figure 9:59 and in the definition of OperationalArchitecture on page 133 in Figure 9:56.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Tue, 19 May 2020 04:44 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:48 GMT

Enterprise Phase Concern

  • Key: UAF12-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    In v1.1, "systemConcern" was changed to "enterprisePhase". But should have been changed to "EnterprisePhaseConcern" to be more grammatically and technically correct.

    FROM
    enterprisePhase : ActualEnterprisePhase[*] Relates a Concern to the ActualEnterprisePhase that addresses that
    concern (ActualEnterprisePhase is synonym for System in ISO 42010).
    TO
    enterprisePhaseConcern : ActualEnterprisePhase[*] Relates a Concern to the ActualEnterprisePhase that addresses that
    concern (ActualEnterprisePhase is synonym for System in ISO 42010).

  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 19:35 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:23 GMT

UAF does not comply with “model kind” as defined by ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011

  • Key: UAF12-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Jean-Luc Garnier)
  • Summary:

    UAF currently claims complying with 42010; but usage of the term “model kind” in DMM is not in line with ISO 42010 (Clause 3.9 model kind = “conventions for a type of modelling”).
    In DMM, “Model Kind” refers to a column of the UAF grid, which is more what is called an “Aspect” in the update of the ISO 42010 reference.
    Similarly, the rows of the UAF grid, currently called “domain” ―term undefined in UAF― could be called “Perspective”, as it is worked in the update of ISO 42010.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:21 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:21 GMT

UAF does not simply agregate terms coming from other AF.

  • Key: UAF12-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Jean-Luc Garnier)
  • Summary:

    “A Domain Metamodel (DMM) uses UML Class models to represent individuals, types and tuples that aggregate the concepts defined in DoDAF, MODEM, NAF, DNDAF and other frameworks. “ is not correct… and in fact not possible.

    Same terms and concepts provided by the available architecture frameworks are unfortunately not all compatible.
    I do recommend either removing this sentence or elaborating on the compatibility of the UAF terms and concepts with those of the other Architecture Framework.
    This compatibility definition is a starting point for interoperability between architecting environment and tools.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:43 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:43 GMT

Need to have terms and definitions formally expressed.

  • Key: UAF12-39
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: THALES ( Jean-Luc Garnier)
  • Summary:

    Considering the current UAF specification (V1.1beta) available to me, I think that it is not acceptable to do have a part or chapter or at least DMM Clause 4 providing a clear set of definition.
    I.e. Key terms are used and not formally defined. In particular, there is no definition for:

    • Domain.
    • Enterprise
    • Architecture
    • Model
    • Language
    • Enterprise Architecture
    • Enterprise Model
    • Enterprise Model
    • Enterprise Modeling Language.
  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:27 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:27 GMT

Enterprise Phase Concern

  • Key: UAF12-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    In v1.1 SystemConcern was changed to EnterprisePhase (dropping notion of "concern" in the change). Should have been changed to EnterprisePhaseConcern to be technically and grammatically correct.

    FROM
    enterprisePhase : ActualEnterprisePhase[*]
    Relates a Concern to the ActualEnterprisePhase that addresses that concern (ActualEnterprisePhase is synonym for System in ISO 42010).

    TO
    enterprisePhaseConcern : ActualEnterprisePhase[*]
    Relates a Concern to the ActualEnterprisePhase that addresses that concern (ActualEnterprisePhase is synonym for System in ISO 42010).

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:12 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:12 GMT

Personnel Domain identifier

  • Key: UAF12-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Personnel Domain identifier is "Pr". Process Model Kind identifier is also "Pr". Would be helpful if Personnel used a different identifier to avoid confusion with Process. Suggest the use of "Ps" identifier for Personnel Domain.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:05 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:05 GMT

The diagrams are not consistent against the legend of colors

  • Key: UAF12-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    There some discrepancies in the display of the UAF classes.
    Can the color consistency be checked automatically?

    See the legend figure, and an example of two classes having different colors in two diagrams.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:54 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:58 GMT
  • Attachments:

ActualResourceRelationship: The textual description does not fir the connector of the class

  • Key: UAF12-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    Original documentation:
    An abstract element that details the ActualOrganizationalResources that are able to carry out an ActualResponsibility.

    The class is not connected to ActualOrganizationalResources nor ActualResponsibility giving the room to many other connections.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:28 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:30 GMT
  • Attachments:

On behalf of the NATO ACAT group, the handling of effects is suggested to be modified

  • Key: UAF12-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Syntell AB ( Lars-Olof Kihlstrom)
  • Summary:

    This issue is submitted on behalf of the NATO ACAT group and relates to the handling of effects within the UAF domain meta model.

    The ACAT group wishes to extend the concept of achiever by adding StandardOperationalActivity as well as ServiceSpecification as possible achievers in addition to the already available ActualResource.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Fri, 6 Mar 2020 07:42 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 19:45 GMT

The constraints for Implements are too strict

  • Key: UAF12-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    The constraint that a operationalConnector must be implemented by another connector (resourceConnector) is too strict. I would like to be able to implement a logical connector into physical connectors and part properties. The idea can be seen in Figure 14.8 of A Practical Guide to SysML (second ed).

  • Reported: UAF 1.1b1 — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:18 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 20:55 GMT

The Service Structure View Diagram Should show how services are structured

  • Key: UAF12-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    The diagram Service Structure (from UAF DMM V1.1, figure 8:19, p53) does not show the complete relations to support the structure of services.
    The relation type is missing while it is shown in a later diagram (figure 8:22 p 56 in BPMN semantics).

    Definition: shows the composition of services and how services are combined into a higher level service required to exhibit a capability or support an operational activity.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:14 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Recommended Implementation should include ibd

  • Key: UAF12-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    The recommended implementation for Operational Taxonomy should include ibd:s since ConceptRoles are Properties.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:46 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:51 GMT

Is OrganizationInEnterprise to restrained?

  • Key: UAF12-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    Current drescription is "An abstraction relationship relating an ActualOrganization to an ActualEnterprisePhase to denote that the ActualOrganization plays a role or is a stakeholder in an ActualEnterprisePhase."

    However, since a stakeholder can also be an OrganizationalResource (see definition in Figure 7.208) maybe the OrganizationInEnterprise could also relate an OrganizationalResource to an ActualEnterprisePhase? Otherwise, only a subset of the stakeholders can be related to an ActualEnterprisePhase.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:58 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:48 GMT

Enterprise Modeling Language Logo

  • Key: UAF12-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    The overall UAF specification has a logo and often this logo is also used to represent the UAF Profile. However, given that the UAF Profile is actually used as an enterprise modeling language then it would be helpful for UAFP to have its own logo (analogous to logos for UML and SysML) to help people more readily understand that UAFP can (and should) be used for modeling the enterprise. This will also help increase the uptake of UAF by enterprise architects and managers of these enterprises.

    See attached file illustrates what such a logo might look like. Preferably this logo should be included on the title page of the UAFP document, as well as in UAF presentations.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:39 GMT
  • Attachments:

Should SubjectOfForecast be an Asset instead of ResourcePerformer?

  • Key: UAF12-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    In the description of Forecast it says "...transition from one Asset,...". However Asset is not a specialization of SubjectOfForecast.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 2 May 2019 08:45 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:33 GMT

Achiever cannot be the same as Desirer

  • Key: UAF12-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Let me describe the situation.
    1. I create Capability as a desirer
    2. I draw desiredEffect relationship from Capability to fielded capability with specific measures applied to it.
    3. I want to verify if my analysis results meets the desired configuration, however, I cannot link achieved results with the same capability using AchievedEffect relationship.

    To be able to compare desired with achieved, first both needs to be paired. Second, I want to see both related to my Capability not only what is desired but more importantly what is achieved. This needs to be improved in UAF spec.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:57 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:29 GMT

UAF Profile should be identified as an Enterprise Modeling Language

  • Key: UAF12-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( James Martin)
  • Summary:

    Misunderstanding about whether the UAF Profile can be used in modeling an enterprise architecture. Not uncommon for managers to think that they must use SysML to model their EA since they don't realize that the UAFP is already designed with the semantics for modeling enterprise constructs such as capability, enterprise phase, processes, personnel, operations, services, portfolios, etc. This misunderstanding is largely due to fact that UAFP is called a "profile" and many don't understand what is meant by profile.

    Suggest changing title of UAFP document to something like "UML Profile for UAF-based Enterprise Modeling". Or "UML Profile for UAF: Definition of an Enterprise Modeling Language".

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:06 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:06 GMT

Inconsistency between spec and implementation

  • Key: UAF12-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <submission on behalf of James Johnson>
    Cameo includes representations for ServiceFunctionEdge, along with its corresponding flows, ServiceControlFlow and ServiceObjectFlow. The UAF Specification does not show these items, even though it includes a specification for FunctionEdge, along with its corresponding flows,
    FunctionControlFlow and FunctionObjectFlow. Please clarify whether the specification is correct and notify No Magic to remove ServiceFunctionEdge, or update the UAF Specification to include these items.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:10 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:49 GMT

SecurityClassificationKind should be linked via a kind end instead of type


Conceptual mapping between UAF DMM and Archimate elements

  • Key: UAF12-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Add mapping and text to describe how UAF DMM can be used to represent or transform an archimate architecture into UAF.

    Rationale to show how we can conform to NAF via Archimate

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:37 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:38 GMT

Add the UAF Metamodel on a page

  • Key: UAF12-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Add Lar's diagram in the appropriate places in the documentation.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:37 GMT

Actual Risk should be captured in Security Parameters rather than Security Constraints

  • Key: UAF12-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Actual Risk as well as Security Measurements needs to captured in Security Parameters.
    Currently Actual Risk is captured as a part of Security Constraints and Security Measurements are are captured as part of Security Taxonomy. It is not following the UAF pattern.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:05 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:33 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF12-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( 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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:25 GMT
  • Attachments:
    • Example.xlsx 30 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet)

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

  • Key: UAF12-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( 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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM

  • Key: UAF12-2
  • 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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:12 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF12-1
  • 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

    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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:24 GMT

UAF DMM v1.1 has no chapter number

  • Key: UAF12-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    This could be useful to indicate where JIRA issues has been found.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:42 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:42 GMT

Security Constraints and Corrective Process

  • Key: UAF12-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    UAF v1.1 DMM p92 Figure 8:56.
    There is a link to model preventive process (Mitigates).
    Is there something to indicate corrective process (once the risk happens)?

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:41 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:41 GMT

Two model kinds are addressing modeling of connections

  • Key: UAF12-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    According to UAF v1.1 §7.1 table 7.2, two distinct model kinds are addressing the modeling of connections; Structure and Connectivity.

    Structure: Describes the definitions of the dependencies, connections, and relationships between the different elements.
    Connectivity: Describes the connections, relationships, and interactions between the different elements.

    While §1.3 emphasizes the Separation of Concerns supported by a framework.

    Are we addressing the same type of connections.
    If not, it should be precised there.
    If yes, what about the separation of concerns?

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:54 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:44 GMT

CapabilityDependency: meaning of the two types of metaclasses need clarification

  • Key: UAF12-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    Capability Dependency History:
    NAF 3.0 ==> Capability Dependency btw Capability Composition,
    NAF 3.1 ==> Move of the dependencies to the Capability metaclasses,
    UAF DMM 1.0 p20 ==> Direct link btw Capability (not part element),
    UAF DMM 1.1 p36 ==> Dependencies btw both Capabilty and CapabilityRole.
    Seems to be new compared to UAF 1.0 : only 1 link btw Capability, and no CapabilityRole metaclass.
    Definition of Capability seems now the definition of CapabilityRole.

    How CapabilityDependency and CapabilityRoleDependency are related to each other?
    Is the second one a refinement of the 1st one?
    Is there any pattern like this where both whole (Capability) and part (CapavbilityRole) are both having a similar relation?

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:24 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:24 GMT

Typos on chapter 7.2 Domain Interrelationships

  • Key: UAF12-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    UAF v1.1 DMM - §7.2 Spelling errors
    Gird ==> Grid.
    because of It is two-dimensional ==> because of its two-dimensional

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:05 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:05 GMT

The scope of the Strategic State view is not clear on the illustrating diagram

  • Key: UAF12-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    The Strategic State view definition diagram is saturated of extra classes.
    UAF 1.0 DMM - Figure 2.4 p21.
    UAF 1.1 DMM - Figure 8.4 p 37.
    What are the really useful metaclasses to understand the modeling of strategic states?
    It seems a lot of metaclasses are out of scope.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:03 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:03 GMT

Roadmap model kind: incomplete sentence

  • Key: UAF12-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Dominique Ernadote)
  • Summary:

    The definition of the Roadmap model kind seems to have an incomplete (last) sentence.
    "Addresses how elements in the architecture change over time. Also, how at different points in time or different periods of time."

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:58 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:58 GMT

ISO Date Time needs to be refactored

  • Key: UAF12-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    ISODateTime is currently mapped to literal string. In my opinion it does not make sense. This mapping does not allow to reuse dates in the easy way. Plus we also have the same approach with milestones implemented very differently. I do believe that both approaches need to be aligned. Dates should be easily reusable all over model.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:01 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:01 GMT

Performs in Context is confusing

  • Key: UAF12-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Performs in context is a very powerful concept in UAF. However, it is not very well implemented. Currently it connects Activity with Role. Which means it connects element of definition with the element of usage. It does not give much value. It should connect Action with Role. In such case it would connect two elements of usage and in particular reflect the contextualized allocation between structure and behaviour concepts.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:01 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:01 GMT

Exchange Contract

  • Key: UAF12-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Supporting service oriented architecture principle, exchange between performers or resources need to support the concept of a contract. Contract may be composed of several exchanges facing different directions. That is something that is missing in UAF specification at the moment.

    Issue is reported by Airbus

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:00 GMT

Capability specialisations are needed

  • Key: UAF12-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Currently Capability in UAF is representing business level capability, however; there are no corresponding elements at the solution domain. It is common practice in engineering to use a concept of Feature as a technical capability provided by a system or a set of systems. Having feature concept in UAF has beed already discussed in UAF 1.1 RTF and agreed between group members. It is something that has been requested by Boeing and now is also requested by Airbus. Another Airbus request is to make Competence a type of feature provided by organisational resources. This would fit Competence concept into the right place in hierarchy as now it is kind of left alone.

  • Reported: UAF 1.1 — Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:34 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:34 GMT

Inconsistencies in view specifications

  • Key: UAF12-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    The view specifications Operational Structure and Resources Structure should be consistent with each other. Why does the former include OperationalParameter but the latter does not include ResourceParameter? Also, OperationalActivity is included in the former but Function is omitted in the latter.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:44 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:48 GMT

CapabilityForTask, is it redundant?

  • Key: UAF12-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    Two different abstractions are allowed between Capability and ActualEnduringTask. These are: Exhibits and CapabilityForTask. What is the motivation of having two different relationships? Do we need both? Perhaps it is the ActualEnduringTask that should not be a CapableElement (and hence the Exhibits relationship that should go).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:48 GMT

The View definition in Annex A are missing stereotypes from the Elements list

  • Key: UAF12-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The View definition sections in Annex A are missing stereotypes from the Elements list if they are shown as “stereotyped relationship” links. For example, Exhibits and IsCapableToPerform are missing from Elements list under figure 218.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:44 GMT

Stereotypes for flowProperties

  • Key: UAF12-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Flow properties needs to be stereotyped in the profile to better integrate interfaces to exchanges and signals. Stereotypes are needed for Operational, Service, and Resource Interfaces

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:44 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:44 GMT