Though here is a view called Strategic Constraints, there are no elements available to capture them. Strategic Constraint element needs to be added to the specification consistently with constraint elements in other domains, e.g., Operational Constraint.

Strategic Constraint added

Strategic Constraint element added to support Strategic Constraints View Specification

Update in Appendix A (Traceability) document to reflect changes in the normative documents is needed. Mapping tables to source frameworks like DoDAF, NAF, MODEM are necessary to be updated to demonstrate continuation to comply with source frameworks as indicated in the UAF RFP requirements,

Appendix A (Traceability) document updated to reflect changes in the normative documents

Appendix A (Traceability) document updated to reflect changes in the normative documents:
-Mapping tables to source frameworks like DoDAF, NAF, MODEM are updated to demonstrate continuation to comply with source frameworks as indicated in the UAF RFP requirements,
-Backwards compatibility to UAF 1.1 and UPDM 2.1 are updated.
-Mapping table to SysML is updated.

Update Appendix B (Example) document to reflect changes in the normative documents by
-adding new view specifications
-new elements
-removing deleted elements
-updating existing view specifications

Appendix B (Example) document updated to reflect changes in the normative documents

Appendix B (Example) document updated to reflect changes in the normative documents by
-adding new view specifications
-demonstrating the use of newly added elements
-removing deleted elements
-updating existing view specifications

Add support for Value Streams in UAF. Please consider Value Streams implementation as described in Business Architecture Metamodel. Provide support for strategic value streams, value stream stages, before/after relationship between different value stream stages, value networks, operational value streams, and outcome (value) produced by the value stream.

Reported in behalf of Boeing

Value Stream concept added to the Strategic Viewpoint

Added support for Value Streams in UAF. In addition added before/after relationship called Sequence and OwnsValue relationship.

Users of UAF need a guide on how to use UAF to develop architecture models. The Guide needs to be part of the UAF Specification to ensure it can be properly referenced in organizational documents, contracts, handbooks, etc. The Guide can be a non-normative component of the UAF Specification.

UAF EA Guide document introduced

EA Guide for UAF was developed based on a comprehensive workflow that addresses all of the UAF views in v1.2. Each step in the workflow has a conceptual schema for the key concepts associated with the UAF views in that step. Each step is described in terms of what the view contains for that step. The EA Guide is a non-normative component of the UAF spec.

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.

Terms updated to be better compliant with ISO 42010

All appearances of the terms Domain, Viewpoint, and Model Kind renamed in all the documents.

Domain renamed Viewpoint (compliant to ISO 42010)
Viewpoint renamed to View Specification (UAF specific)
ModelKind renamed to Aspect (compliant to ISO 42010)

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.

*Risk concept generalised *

Risk in v1.1 was only associated with those that are mitigated by security controls as they pertain to views in the Security Domain. Risk is more general notion that can be applied to any element in the architecture, so a new Risk element was added and the old Risk element was made a subtype name Security Risk.

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)

Metadata renamed to Architecture Management and additional view specifications added

Additional views were added to address architecture development method, architecture principles, architecture roadmaps and architecture traceability, views that are needed to help manage the development of the architecdture. Hence the name of this domain changed from Metadata to Architecture Management.

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.

ComparesTo relationship added to the metamodel and the profile

ComparesTo relationship added to be able to bind desired effects to achieved effects to be able to compared desired characteristics with achieved ones easily.

<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.

ServiceControlFlow and ServiceObjectFlow added

ServiceControlFlow and ServiceObjectFlow added to the UAF profile to support ServiceProcesses viewspec and make the ServiceProcess view specification consistent with OperationalProcesses and ResourceProcesses.

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

Metamodel on the page developed and added to the UAF Guide document

The full scope of the Domain Metamodel in UAF was difficult to understand, so a higher level "conceptual schema" was created as a single view that captures the top sixty elements of the DMM in a manner that is more readily understandable by architects, engineers and managers. This "metmodel on a page" is included in the EA Guide for UAF document which is a non-normative component of the UAF spec.

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.

The issue fixed in the previous release

The issue no longer exists in formal/19-11-05.

“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.

Text updated

formal/19-11-05 page 11 text revised:
from: 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.
to: A Domain Metamodel (DMM) uses UML Class models to represent individuals, types and tuples that maps the concepts defined in DoDAF, MODEM, NAF, and other frameworks.

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.

Glossary added into the UAF EA Guide document

Text updated in the UAF DMM document chapter 4 to:
No new terms and definitions have been required to create this specification. All terms are available in the normative references or bibliographic citations for detailed explanation. The modeling concepts specified in this standard e.g., MetaModel Elements, Viewpoints, Aspects, View Specifications, etc. are defined in the appropriate section for that concept. Additional terms are defined in Appendix C: Enterprise Architecture Guide (EAG).

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.

A list of abbreviations updated

formal/19-11-05 updated by:
1. page 15 text revised
--from Pr
--to Ps

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.

Generalization relationship displayed correctly

formal/19-11-05 updated by replacing Operational Structure diagram with the updated one (attached). Updated diagram contains updated arrowhead of the generalization relationship between Operational Performer and OperationalAgent

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.

Editorial mistake

There was an editorial error where incorrect diagram was copied to the Operational Interaction Scenarios viewspec. This diagram will be replaced by the correct one.

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

Issue no longer exists in the official version of the UAF 1.1. specification

Documents formal/19-11-05 and formal/19-11-07 no longer have editorial errors specified in this issue. Obviously the issues existed in the earlier versions of the specification formal/19-06-15 and formal/19-05-10.

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

Strategic Information added

Issue resolved by adding new element called Strategic Information which is a type of Strategic Asset that maps to one or more Enterprise Goals/Objectives. Strategic Information is also a Strategic Exchange Item.

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).

Opportunity element added

Opportunity added as a new element to 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.

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

ActualEffect and ActualOutcome added

ActualOutcome added as a new element 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.
Desired and Achieved Effects refactored by introducing Effect and ActualEffect elements and renaming dependencies AchievedEffect and DesiredEffect to Achieves and Desires.

Change name of column "Interaction Scenarios" to "Interactions" in the UAF grid for the following reasons:

• the word "scenario" is specific to some application domains, while other words are sometimes used, eg timing diagram, sequence diagram, event/trace, mission thread, execution thread, workflow
• scenarios can also be captured in other columns, eg Processes, States, Taxonomy (define hierarchy of scenarios), Structure (define composition of scenarios, high level composed of lower level), etc
• some use Operational Architecture as way to capture an operational scenario and Resource Architecture as a resource scenario, and the OA and RA are not necessarily captured in the Interaction Scenarios column
• the suggested implementation for views in this column is a SysML sequence diagram (not some kind of interaction scenarios diagram)
• this is the only column name that is two words, going to one word in the name simplifies it

Also change designator from "Is" to "In".

Alternatively, this column name could be changed to "Sequencing" (Sq) if "Interactions" does not work.

Renamed to Sequences

After some discussion we rename it to Sequences following NATO framework. It is in compliance with NAF and SysML.

• 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
• Introduce Service Exchange
• Rename Service Specification to Service to keep consistency

Services layer improvements

Significant improvements has been done to improve the way Services are modelled in UAF. The improvements are as follows:
1. Service Specification renamed to Service to be aligned with the remaining of the UAF specification.
2. Addition of the contract concept to support grouping of OperationalExchanges and relating them to the existing Services.
3. Traceability from Operational to Services.

• Consumes relationship renamed to supports. Direction of the relationship changed.
• GovernedBy relationship added between Service and the ServiceContract.
  4. The way services are used in Resources are changed by introducing ResourceService concept and allowing ResourceServiceInterfaces to be used to type Resource Ports. ResourceServices can Implement Services.
  5. Information Element and Data Element are now called OperationalInformation and ResourceInformation to indicate clearly where which information element is used.
  7. Addition of Service Exchange and Service Signal to have alignment with the Operational and Resource layers
  9. Addition of Service Architecture to be consistent with Operational and Resources layers.
  The list of affected diagrams and texts are captured in the worklog.

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".

UAFP renamed to UAFML

The decision has been taken by the group to rename the profile part of the specification to the modelling language following the naming convention of OMG, e.g. UML, SysML, SoaML, RAAML, etc. The change will improve clarity of the purpose of the document as the term "Profile" is not so well understood in non UML modellers community. Plus it is more than just profile. It also brings notation.

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)?

Required concepts are already available

There is a link between Actual Resource and Actual Risk to address the corrective process in UAF security viewpoint.

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

Typos fixed

Typos fixed in the section 7.2 page 17 of the formal/19-11-05.

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."

Text refined

Text changed from:
Addresses how elements in the architecture change over time. Also, how at different points in time or different periods of time.
to:
Addresses how elements in the architecture change over time.

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?

Text updated

Text changed from:
Describes the definitions of the dependencies, connections, and relationships between the different elements.
to:
Describes the break down of structural elements e.g. logical performers, systems, projects, etc. into their smaller parts.

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.

ResourcesStructure diagram made consistent with OperationStructure diagram

ResourcesStructure diagram made consistent with OperationStructure diagram by adding Function and IsCapableToPerform.

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

Forecast definition changed

Definition of the Forecast Meta Model Class and the Stereotype has been changed to:
A dependency relationship that specifies a transition from one Resource Performer, Standard, Competence to another future one. It is related to an ActualStrategicPhase to give it a temporal context.

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.

Issue not found

According to the page and figure numbers specified issues has not been found.

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.

Risk removed from SecurityConstraints view specification

Risk removed from SecurityConstraints view specification and as a part of resolution of another issue added to a new cross-domain Parameters:Risk viewspec.

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

Resolved in the previous version of the specification

The issue dos not exist in formal/19-11-05 and formal/19-11-07.

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.

Connection is inherited

The connection is inherited via generalisation relationship.

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).

Duplicates UAF12-42

Duplicates UAF12-42

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.

Duplicates UAF12-48

Duplicates UAF12-48

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.

Merged with another proposal to rename specification

Merged with UAF12-29

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

Driver and Challenge elements added

Driver added as a new element that will be identified from various (usually external) driving documents: Strategic plans, legislation, regulations, treaties, agreements, charters, etc. Relevant Drivers present Challenges to the Enterprise. Challenge added as a new element which defined as a “demanding or stimulating situation” or a “call to engage in a contest or fight”.

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

Merged into one issue on Different Kinds of Capability

Merged into a single issue UAF12-17

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.

Merged into one issue on Capability Kinds

Merged into a single issue UAF12-17

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

Resource Performer <exhibits> Feature

Merged in a single issue UAF12-17

Merged in a single issue UAF12-17

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.

Type arrow added

Association indicating type relationship between Service and ServiceRole added in the ServiceStructure diagram.

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.

Not an issue of the UAF specification

This is not an issue of the existing UAF specification. It is the to do task related to the renaming of the profile specification document.

Almost all association ends linking a class X to a class XKind are named kind.
This is not the case for SecurityClassificationKind.

Normal way:
https://issues.omg.org/secure/attachment/17591/2019-12-11%200940%20Other%20Right%20Examples.PNG

Other way to be changed:
https://issues.omg.org/secure/attachment/17590/2019-12-11%200937%20SecurityClassificationKind.PNG

Type renamed to kind

Type renamed to kind in the Security Classification diagram in DMM.

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

Issue has not been found

Issue description does not contain necessary details to identify exact document, page, chapter/section. Issue reported does not recall details either. We close the issue as we were not able to find it.

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?

This is how it is defined in UAF since its first release

Capability Dependency can be drawn between types, which means that Capabilities are always dependent or between Roles, which means that Capabilities may only be dependent in the specific context. Let's say a specific EnterprisePhase. How one relates to another if both are applicable in the model is a subject to the modelling approach. UAF specification is not defining any constraints.

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.

All metaclasses are relevant

All metaclasses depicted in the given figures can be used to model desired and achieved Effects. Moreover the list has been extended to include ActualEffect and ActualOutcome as the resolution of another issue reported against UAF 1.1.

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.

The issue is no longer valid

Figure 3:27 – PerformsInContext in formal/19-11-07 depicts that the issue is no longer valid. All what is requested is available already in the UAF v1.1

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

Duplicates UAF12-33

Merged with UAF12-33

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.

Capability Kind introduced to support the need

CapabilityKind enumerated list is added to classify the capability as e.g. operational, resource, strategic, personnel, service, security, or other. There are no specific constraints added when which of the kinds is supposed to be used. It depends on the methodology used within the organization. The generic use of Capability kinds is addressed in the EA guide document. By the default CapabilityKind is set to undefined.

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).

Only Phases relationship is allowed between Capability and ActualEnduringTask

ActualEnduringTask is now a subtype of abstract type ActualStrategicPhase. ActualStrategicPhase can Phase PhaseableElements where Capability is one of those. Phase relationship is newly added to replace limited CapabilityForTask relationship.
ActualEnduringTask is no longer a subtype of CapableElement.

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

Out of scope for this release

The issue requires more investigation and has a huge impact on the specification. It is out of scope to the UAF v1.1 and will be addressed in the future releases of UAF.

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

The mapping will be taken as defined by NATO

The NATO is working on to provide mapping between specifications. To not duplicate the effort we will reference the NATO mapping as opposed to working on a new one.

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

Tool vendor issue

This is related to the way UAF specification is implemented rather than specification it self.

"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

The conformance to DM2 is already provided and recognised in DISR

The conformance to DM2 is already provided in the UAF 1.1 and recognised in DISR. Conformance to PES is not planned and will not be implemented. The only supported exchange specification for UAF models and DoDAF models modelled in UAFP will remain XMI standard.

Entered on behalf of Torsten Graeber

Out of scope for UAF. A new RFP is needed.

Exchange format is out of scope for UAF RTF specification. A new RFP is needed to support it.

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.

Derivation of RoleKind names is up to the tool vendors

RoleKinds and how they are notated on the diagrams is solely tool vendor issue. UAF specification defines only the list of possible kinds where tool vendor can define how they appear on the diagrams.

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.

Due to the scope of impact deferred to the next release

Will be resolved in the next version of the specification.

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).

No longer relevant

Changes done to the specification as a result of other issues solving makes this issue no longer relevant.
Related changes:
-the addition of the ActualStrategicPhase
-the addition of the Phases relationship between ActualStrategicPhase and Concern.

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

ARM will be one of the major works for the next version of UAF

Deferred due to the lack of domain analysis done and the size of the scope of work and impact.

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

Deferred to the next version of UAF

Due to large scope of impacts, the issue is deferred to the next version of UAF. Inputs from Aerospace Corporation and Airbus are documented and will be used as a basis for issue resolution in the next release.

The elements in the Actual Resources views are instances of the "definitional" elements in other domains. For example, Actual Resource (classified by Resource Performer element types in Resources domain); Actual Post, Actual Person, Actual Organization (<all classified by elements from Personnel domain); Actual Resource for a Resource Mitigation (from Security domain). The new Resource Service element will be classified by a Service in the Services domain.

Notice that not all the elements shown in Actual Resources views come from the Resources domain views (ie, they also come from Personnel, Security, and Service domains). So, the name "Actual Resources" is somewhat misleading in this respect. Therefore, it would better if this domain is renamed to more accurately reflect its intended content. Suggest the name be changed to "Actualization" (Az) domain.

Actual Resources Domain review postponed

The issue requires deep analysis and has a big impact to the existing version of specification. Taking in count other improvements addressed in UAF 1.2 RTF this issue is out of scope and will be deferred to the future release of UAF.

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).

The connection is possible between two Resource Connectors

The connection is already possible and depicted in the Implements diagram Figure 3:34 – Implements in formal/19-11-07.

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.

Large scope of a change

The issue requires more investigation and has a huge impact on the specification. It is out of scope to the UAF v1.1 and will be addressed in the future releases of UAF.

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

Deferred to future versions of UAF

Deferred to future versions of UAF

ResourceInteractionKind should really be called ResourceExchangeKind.

ResourceIntercationKind renamed to ResourceExchangeKind

ResourceIntercationKind renamed to ResourceExchangeKind

Reported in behalf of NATO ACaT group.
DMM diagrams readability needs to improved:
-missing association role names need to be added;
-hidden attributes need to be shown;
-BPMN aliases need to be hidden;
-missing multiplicities needs to be shown.

Multiple diagram changes were done to improve readability of the document

Multiple diagram changes were done to improve readability of the document. At the same time cosmetic adjustments were done on Profile document diagrams.

modify title and text for DMM diagram legend

modify title and text for DMM diagram legend

modify title and text for DMM diagram legend

Sv-Pr has recommended implementations for BDD, IBD and Tabular format. This is for showing ServiceFunctions (i.e. Activities) so IBD isn’t going to work and Activity Diagram (the most obvious choice) is missing.

Update and modify desccription text for Sv-Pr MM and Profile

Update and modify desccription text for Sv-Pr MM and Profile
not required

In the mapping tables for UAF views to DoDAF/MODAF Views, you just have StV-6 mapped to St-Tr, but StV-6 (at least in part) would seem to be a good fit for Op-Tr as well.

StV-6 is now only mapped to Operational Traceability

StV-6 is now only mapped to Operational Traceability
Looks ok to me

Sc-Tx mapped to IBD doesn’t make sense – it doesn’t show any parts.

Update and modify desccription text for Sc Tx MM and Profile

Update and modify desccription text for Sc Tx MM and Profile so it is implemented as BDD

Not an issue as far as i can i see

Timeline as a recommended implementation for Sv-Tr doesn’t make sense – I think this should be tabular.

Recommended Implementations updated for Sv-Tr

Changed from:
"Recommended Implementation: timeline, SysML Block Definition Diagram, SysML Internal Block Diagram"
to
"Recommended Implementation: tabular or matrix format."

Pr-Ct mapping looks like it should include the OV-4 Actual as a potential mapping.

Pr-Ct mapping should include the OV-4 Actual as a potential mapping.

Update text

Inconsistent naming for State Diagrams – sometimes called State Machine Diagram (correct) but other times just called State Diagram (incorrect but matches our metamodel atm).

SysML State Diagram replaced with SysML State Machine Diagram

SysML State Diagram replaced with SysML State Machine Diagram

Ov-Ct has BDD as a recommended implementation but Sv-Ct (which is basically the same) doesn’t. Seems like one of them should be changed.

Update and modify desccription text for Op-Ct, Rs-Ct and Sc-Ct MM and Profile

Update and modify desccription text for Op-Ct, Rs-Ct and Sc-Ct MM and Profile to be implemented as either IBD or Table(s)

OV-1a is mapped as Op-Sr and SmOV – it should probably only be SmOV, as it’s an overview more than an operational structure.

*OV-1a should not be mapped as Op-Sr and SmOV *

Update traceability matrix, but yes OV1-a should be mapped to SM Ov as is it can be overview of scenario

OV-1b is not mapped to anything – I’m guessing it should be mapped to the SmOV?

OV-1b should be mapped to the SmOV

Update tracreability matrix

Sd mappings are wrong in Annex B:
a. Tx = TV-2 BDD
b. Sr = TV-2 IBD

Sd mappings are wrong in Annex B:

Not an issue

Pj mappings are wrong in Annex B:
a. Tx = AcV-3 BDD (typical)
b. Sr = AcV-3 BDD (actual)
c. Cn = AcV-3 BDD (actual & typical)
d. Pr = AcV-2 AD (missing completely, even though ProjectActivities were added back in)
e. Rm = AcV-2 Timeline & AcV-1 Tabular

Pj mappings are wrong in Annex B

Not an issue

The changes to KnownResource don’t make any sense to me. Why change it to a Class? What does it mean now? The text is the same as it was when KnownResource was used to show a Resource inside the context of a Node, but makes no sense now it’s not a part and can’t be used in the same way.

Definition for Known Resource revised

Definition for Known Resource revised

OV-1c and SV-7 are better fits for Pm-Me, rather than Pm-En. The UPDM views were responsible for showing performance attributes, which doesn’t really have anything to do with defining environments (though the performance attributes would contain environmental properties as well as other properties).

OV-1c and SV-7 are better fits for Pm-Me

Looking into UAF traceability document it is exactly the same mapping as requested. However, there is a problem with Figure 6.3 - Overlay of MODAF Views onto UAF/P Grid that needs to be updated.

the table looks ok to me GJB

<submission on behalf of James Johnson>
In the UAF Specification, the diagram for CapableElement (Figure 30) identifies EnterprisePhase as a CapableElement. The diagram for EnterprisePhase(Figure 42) does not show this relationship.
However, the specification for EnterprisePhase does identify CapableElement.

Capable Element shown in Enterprise Phase Diagram

Capable Element is added to Capable Element Diagram

<submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
The diagram for AssetRole (Figure 155) identifies SecurityProperty as an
AssetRole. The diagram for SecurityProperty (Figure 156) does not show this relationship.

Security Property does not exist anymore

SecurityProperty was removed from the profile as a result of solving UAF11-16 issue. This issue is no longer relevant.

<submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
Text for ResponsibleRoleKind refers to ResponsibleRole. However, ResponsibleRoleKind is identified as an enumeration for ResponsibleFor (Figure 113). text and figure don't match. (p 92-93)

Text updated

Text changed for Resource Role Kind. Instead of "ResposibleRole"it is now "ResponsibleFor". Also typo corrected on ResponsibleFor documentation.

<submission on behalf of James Johnson>
For completeness, consider listing ActualProject and ActualResource as CapableElements. Additionally, Achiever and Desirer should be listed as CapableElements. Please investigate and add if deemed appropriate.

Actual Resource and Actual Service are now Capable Elements

It makes perfect sense to allow Exhibits relationship to be drawn between Actual Resource and Capability. The same applies to Actual Service as the Service Specification is Capable element. However, in case of Actual Project, we do not agree. Actual Project as well as project cannot directly exhibit capability. As for Achiever, all subtypes of achiever are already Capable elements except Actual Project. As for Desirer it would not make sense to have it as Capable Element because one of its subtypes is Capability. Capability cannot exhibit Capability.

If DataModel contains InformationElements as well as DataElements, should it really be part of the Resource domain? Similarly, if DataModel can be the subject of an OperationalConstraint, shouldn’t it also be subject of a ResourceConstraint too?

Data Model moved to Metadata and made a specialization of Subject of Resource Constraint

Data Model and Data Model Kind moved to Metadata and made a specialization of Subject of Resource Constraint

OperationalExchange.trustlevel should be called OperationalExchange.trustLevel, as “trustlevel” isn’t a word.

trustlevel changed to trustLevel

trustlevel changed to trustLevel

The ResponsibleFor.ResponsibleRoleKind tag should start with a lowercase letter like all of the others appear to be and, to be even more consistent, should probably just be called kind.

ResponsibleRoleKind tag now starts from lowercase

ResponsibleRoleKind tag now starts from lowercase to be consistent with other tags. The same is done with projectKind tag name in DMM.

Section 7 says “UAFP imports the entire SysML profile and contains a set of constraints that specify which SysML stereotypes are applied to the UAFP elements.”. This isn’t true. UPDM was done this way but UAF was done by inheriting from SysML stereotypes instead, so no dual stereotyping and constraints exist.

The text is updated (see description)

Replace:
"UAFP imports the entire SysML profile and contains a set of constraints that specify which SysML stereotypes are applied to the UAFP elements. This is intended to provide more seamless integration with system modeling using SysML and to be able to fully leverage the capabilities of SysML in UAFP. An example of this is the integration of Requirements into the UAFP and also the use of Parametric Diagrams and integration of elements based upon instance specifications to allow the assessment of measures within an architecture developed using UAFP."
with
"UAFP imports the entire SysML profile and a number of UAFP stereotypes inherit from SysML stereotypes. This is intended to provide more seamless integration with system modeling using SysML and to be able to fully leverage the capabilities of SysML in UAFP. An example of this is the integration of Requirements into the UAFP and also the use of Parametric Diagrams and integration of elements based upon instance specifications to allow the assessment of measures within an architecture developed using UAFP."

Operational Activities can be performed by any Operational Agent but only Operational Performers can own Operational Methods. This seems pretty inconsistent and means there’s some gaps in what you can model on things like a Sequence Diagram. Either Operational Methods should be owned by Operational Agents or only Operational Performers should be able to perform Operational Activities. I’m assuming that Operational Agents should be able to own Operational Methods.

Operational Method needs to be owned by Operational Agent

Operational Method ownership changed from Operational Performer to Operational Agent. Operational Performer inherits ownership of Operational Methods from Operational Agent. This appeared to be an issue in the profile only.

Figure 179 for ActualProjectMilestone has ActualOrganizationalResource shown but it isn’t attached to anything…

Actual Organizational Resource removed from Diagram

Actual Organizational Resource removed from Diagram

SubjectOfSecurityConstraint doesn’t allow you to constrain any elements from the SecurityDomain – is this correct?

Security Process added as a subtype of Subject of Security Constraint

Most of Security Domain elements are indirect subtypes of Subject of Security Constraint. The only really missing part was Security Process, which was added as a subtype of Subject of Security Constraint.

SecurityControlFamily has a constraint for annotedElement – this doesn’t belong to a Class…

Incorrect constraint removed

Incorrect constraint removed from SecurityControlFamily

Figure 211 for Strategic Connectivity shows a Capability with a Dependency, which is fine. However, the recommended implementations mention IBD, which doesn’t make sense with this subset of views. Should CapabIlityProperty be shown with Dependencies too – like we used to have in UPDM?

Role Dependency added to Strategic Connectivity

Role Dependency added to Strategic Connectivity. CapabilityProperty renamed to CapabilityRole to reflect DMM

Figure 260 for Security Processes contains additional items to those list in the elements list below it. Also, part of the description for the view mentions SecurityControls, which aren’t shown on the figure. I’m assuming the diagram is correct, as things like Security Process aren’t listed and the element list is wrong, as things like Security Control are shown on the Constraints diagram.

Security Control Properties removed from Security Processes Diagram

Most of the comments are already addressed except for Security Control Properties that needs to be removed from Diagram

Should have an IBD version for the Operational Taxonomy view – it is for showing ConceptRoles after all…

Recommended implementations of Operational Taxonomy now includes SysML ibd

Recommended implementations of Operational Taxonomy now includes SysML ibd

Diagrams and text out of date.

Update DMM sections on UAF grid, Domain interelatiohips and descriptions

delete original section 1 in DMM 17-12-02 and add content of UAF 11 DMM 7-9. docx