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

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: uaf-rtf
  • Issues Count: 33

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UAF12-33 Service Modelling needs to be improved UAF 1.1 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

Service Modelling needs to be improved

  • Key: UAF12-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 09:05 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: No Magic, Inc. ( 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