United Architecture Framework Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

United Architecture Framework — Open Issues

  • Acronym: UAF
  • Issues Count: 146
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UAF11-44 Figure 88 for ServiceMethod inconsistent UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-116 Provided complete list of UAF PropertySets in table UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-101 Tx and Sr views overlap. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-117 Identify all MeasurableElements in a comprehensive list or table UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-118 Doc inconsistency between ActualOrganizationalResource & ActuralResponsibility UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-121 Inconsistency between text/figure for ResponsibleRoleKind UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-122 Unclear relationship between ActualProject and ActualPropertySet UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-123 Document inconsistency between AssetRole and SecurityProperty UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-124 Document inconsistency between EnterprisePhase and CapableElement UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-125 Dual inheritance for ActualService is confusing UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-128 Inclusion of additional CapableElements UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-32 Constraint text for Figure 34 is incorrect. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-35 Multiplicity wrong for Actual Enterprise Phase: forecastPeriod tag UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-38 Figure 40 – Capability, shows CapabilityForTask twice UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-39 EnterpriseVision.statement should be derived or removed. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-40 Problems with Figure 49 UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-41 Problem with Figure 214 for Strategic Roadmap UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-45 Figure103 for OrganizationalResource is missing some relationships. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-46 ResponsibleFor.ResponsibleRoleKind tag wrong. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-47 The ResourceRole.RoleKind tag should start with a lowercase letter. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-48 ResourceInteractionKind should really be called ResourceExchangeKind. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-49 OperationalExchange.trustlevel should be called OperationalExchange.trustLevel UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-52 Figure 140 for DataModel doesn’t show an extension to a UML type. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-53 InformationElements and DataElements location and constraints. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-55 Figure 163 for Risk doesn’t show a specialization to Block UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-57 SecurityControlFamily has a constraint for annotedElement UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-59 SubjectOfSecurityConstraint doesn’t allow you to constrain any elements from the SecurityDomain UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-60 SubjectOfSecurityConstraint is specialized by Asset but not AssetRole UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-63 Figure 179 for ActualProjectMilestone error UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-64 Figure 182 for Protocol should show the relationship to implementers. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-65 ActualService doesn’t need to directly inherit from ActualPropertySet UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-70 Figure 260 for Security Processes issues. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-73 CapabIlityProperty should be shown with Dependencies UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-74 Figure 277 for Services Connectivity should show provided/required interfaces UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-75 Figure 277 for Services Connectivity should show ServiceSpecificationRole UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-76 Operational agent should own operational operation. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-93 Inconsistent naming for State Diagrams UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-99 Sc-Tx should be mapped to BDD UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-100 Sc-Pr example doesn’t match the specification. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-108 The OwnsRiskInContext has the wrong constraint text UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-110 The changes to KnownResource don’t make any sense to me. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-111 OwnsProcess should be shown on Figure 76. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-112 ProtocolImplementation should be shown on Figure 182. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-114 ServiceOperation should be shown on Figure 89. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-15 Required Environment needs to be individual as opposed to type UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-16 Security Property name change UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-19 ResponsibleFor relationship from Actual Responsible Resource to Actual Project Milestone is missing in the Responsible For diagram UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-28 Enteprise Phase should not be a subtype of capable element UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-33 Constraints [c] and [d] for Implements.supplier should be merged UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-36 Actual Enterprise Phase: Concern.systemConcern incorrect name. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-43 Figure 53 for Achiever shows AchievedEffect twice. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-56 SecurityControl can't be a specialization of PropertySet and Requirement UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-66 Figure 76 for OperationalActivity is missing OwnsProcess. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-107 OV-1c and SV-7 are better fits for Pm-Me. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-276 Improve quality of DMM diagrams UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-106 OV-1a should not be mapped as Op-Sr and SmOV UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-105 OV-1b should be mapped to the SmOV UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-104 Ar-Sr should be mapped to BDD. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-83 Worked example structure needs changing UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-103 Sd mappings are wrong in Annex B: UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-102 Pj mappings are wrong in Annex B UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-98 Implementation for Sv-Tr should be tabular. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-94 Pr-Ct mapping should include the OV-4 Actual as a potential mapping. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-92 Pr-Sr should be OV-4 typical UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-89 There’s no example of the Sv-Rm view. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-87 Ov-Ct and Sv-Ct recommended implementation should both be BDD UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-86 Sv-Pr implementation should be BDD and Activity diagram and table UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-85 There is no example of an Op-Tr. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-84 Worked example should have all diagrams. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-80 Op-Cn should be mapped to OV-2 and OV-3 UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-82 Mapping for UAF views to DoDAF/MODAF Views problem UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-81 Inconsistency between example and specification UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-77 UAFP Inheritance from SysML issues. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-69 Should have an IBD version for the Operational Taxonomy view UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-30 UAF is not considered DoDAF 2.02 compliant UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-25 NAF 4 conformance UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-23 Update descriptions for MetaData row of Grid UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-22 Add the UAF Metamodel on a page UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-21 Add 3D representation of domain connectivity UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-20 Update UAF Grid UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-18 Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), The Domain Metamodel document should not be marked as Appendix A for UAFP specification UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-5 Make the relationship between the definition Statemachines (currently implicitly related to UML statemachines) and the definition of ResourceStateMachines more explicit for readers of the UAF. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-3 Make the relationship between UML composition and aggregation (for the information model) and the use of whole/part in the UAF more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-2 Make the relationship between UML and the decomposition of Activity based elements more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-1 Make the relationship between UML and BPMN for the representation the BPMN Start Event and End Event more explicit for readers of the UAF specification document. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-159 The diagram for OperationalObjectFlow does not show links to OperationalActivityAction UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-227 Achiever cannot be the same as Desirer UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-158 The diagram for FunctionObjectFlow does not show links to FunctionAction UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-129 Capabilty generalization should be Use Case UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-127 Inconsistency between spec and implementation UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-126 Inconsistency between spec and implementation UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-120 Missing Metaclass designation in documentation UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-119 No diagram representation exists for some model elements UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-115 Problem with ServiceMessageHandler UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-113 ProvidesCompetence should also be an abstraction. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-109 XMI has ProjectActivityAction and CallBehaviourAction – shouldn’t include Activity. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-97 Rs-Rm implementations should be matrix/tabular and BDD. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-96 OrganizationalResources should not be on a Rs-Tx UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-95 Pr-Tx should not show structure, just generalizations. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-91 Typo in the figure 235 text. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-90 Sv-Tr should be matrix/tabular and BDD. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-88 St-Rm should be mapped to an Object Diagram UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-79 Op-Tx should be IBD UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-78 Energy should be restored to the UAF. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-72 Security Constraints inconsistency UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-71 Figure 262 shows an invalid relationship UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-68 Abstract stereotypes in the Elements list within Annex A UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-67 The View definition in Annex A are missing stereotypes from the Elements list UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-62 ActualProject specialization wrong UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-61 Inconsistency with Project UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-58 Abstract stereotypes shouldn't have extensions. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-54 Problem with EnhancedSecurityControl inheritance UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-51 Inconsistency with SecurityProcess and ProjectActivity UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-50 Constraints for ResourceInteractionKind.ResourceEnergyFlow don’t make sense UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-42 Figure 51 for EnduringTask is missing inheritance to SysML::Block UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-37 Actual Enterprise Phase: Concern.systemConcern should be 0..1 UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-34 Inconsistency with Constraint [e] for Implements.supplier UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-31 Definition of FunctionAction is too tight UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-29 Consumes relationship is facing wrong direction UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-27 Stereotypes for flowProperties UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-26 Concpetual mapping between UAF DMM and Archimate elements UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-24 UAF compliance criteria for Toolvendors UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-17 Actual Risk should be captured in Security Parameters rather than Security Constraints UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-14 Ovierview picture (UAF Grid Overview) UAF 1.0b2 open
UAF11-12 conformsTo is missing UAF 1.0b1 open
UAF11-11 Add a 3-way Resource Traceability Matrix as a standard view UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-10 Interoperability and Interchange Testing; LFL Issue #4 (11 September 2017) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-9 Support Extensibility and Specialization of Architectures (Inheritance and Extension of Architectures; LFL Issue #3 (11 September 2017) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-8 Increase DoDAF Conformance – PES Implementation; LFL Issue #2 (11 September 2017). UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-7 Proof of DoDAF Conformance – Meta Model – DM2; LFL Issue #1 (11 September 2017). UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-6 Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-4 Add the element ResourceRoleKinds to the relevant diagrams in the UAF DMM UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-150 CapabilityForTask is duplicated on the Capability diagram (Figure 40) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-160 There should be a depiction for ServiceObjectFlow and ServiceControlFlow, UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-152 Inconsistent depiction of VisionStatement UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-204 Operational Architecture cannot own Operational Port UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-147 The UAFElement stereotype has multiple child stereotypes but none appear on the diagram. UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-148 2) The ServiceFunction diagram (Figure 96) is depicted different then the Operational Activity diagram Figure 78) and the Function diagram (Figure 132) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-149 Diagram Consistency UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-151 AchievedEffect is duplicated on the Achiever diagram (Figure 53) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-153 ProjectRole (Figure 177) does not show as a child of ResourceRole (Figure125) UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-154 On Figure 186, there is no line between ActualOrganizationalResource and ActualProjectMilestone UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-155 Text for ActualMilestoneKind refers to ActualMeasurements instead of ActualProjectMilestone UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-156 ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 194) has no Metaclass UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-157 Multiple diagrams show inconsistencies between themselves UAF 1.0 open
UAF11-13 Constraint uses wrong name UAF 1.0b2 open

Issues Descriptions

Figure 88 for ServiceMethod inconsistent

  • Key: UAF11-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 88 for ServiceMethod shows a ServiceMethod having its owner constrained from two different directions. It shows the ownership being constrained using the ownedOperation role from ServiceInterface and via the owner role to ServiceSpecification. It should be consistent.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:04 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:17 GMT

Provided complete list of UAF PropertySets in table

  • Key: UAF11-116
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <Submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    Diagram for UAF Specification for PropertySet (Figure 21) only identifies 13 UAF Elements that are considered PropertySets (Asset, ProjectMilestone, Capability, Resource, Competence, Servicelnterface, Condition, ServiceSpecification, EnterprisePhase, WholeLifeConfiguration, MeasurementSet, Resourcelnterface, Risk). However, when going through the specification an additional 10 UAF Elements are identified as PropertySets. lf representing all 23 PropertySets in the PropertySet diagram is too cumbersome, suggest adding a table identifying all PropertySets.
    PropertySets not depicted in diagram include:
    a. Concern (p 158-159)
    b. EnduringTask (p 52)
    c. EnterpriseGoal (p 45-46)
    d. EnterpriseVision to (p47)
    e HighLevelOperationalConcept (p 59)
    f Operationallnterface
    g. SecurityControl
    h. Standard
    i. View
    j. Viewpoint

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:01 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:17 GMT

Tx and Sr views overlap.

  • Key: UAF11-101
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    In quite a few places the Tx and Sr views overlap. My understanding was that the taxonomy views provide somewhere to get a list of all the items and the inheritance between them, with the structure views providing somewhere to show the structure. However, the Tx views quite often contain composite structure as well, which makes no sense to me…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:29 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:16 GMT

Identify all MeasurableElements in a comprehensive list or table

  • Key: UAF11-117
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <Submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    Diagram for UAF Specification for MeasurableElement (Figure 21) only identifies 13 UAF Elements that are considered MeasurableElements (Exchange, OperationalConnector, OperatlonalRole, OperationalActivityAction, ProvidesCompetence, Rule, ServiceParameter, Activity, FunctionAction, ResourceRole, ServicePort, OperationaISignalProperty, ResourceSignalProperty). However, when going through the specification an additional 68 UAF Elements are identified as MeasurableElements. If representing all 81 MeasurableElements in
    MeasurableElements diagrams too cumbersome, suggest adding a table identifying all MeasurableElements. MeasurableElements not depicted in diagram include:
    1. Achieved Effect
    2. Affects
    3. AffectsInContext
    4. Alias
    5. ArbitraryConnector
    6. ArchitecturaIDescription
    7. ArchitecturalReference
    8. CapabilityForTask
    9. CapabilityProperty
    10. CompetenceForRole
    11. CompetenceToConduct
    12. ConceptRole
    13. Consumes
    14. Definition
    15. DesiredEffect
    16. Enhances
    17. EnvironmentProperty
    18. Exhibits
    19. FillsPost
    20. Forecast
    21. FunctionEdge
    22. Implements
    23. Information
    24. IsCapabIeToPerform
    25. MapsToCapability
    26. Measurement
    27. Metadata
    28. MilestoneDependency
    29. Mitigates
    30. OperationalActivityEdge
    31. OperationalMessage
    32. OperationalMethod
    33. OperationaIParameter
    34. OperationalPort
    35. OperationaIStateDescription
    36. OrganizationlnEnterprise
    37. OwnsProcess
    38. OwnsRisk
    39. OwnsRisklnContext
    40. PerformslnContext
    41. ProjectMiIestoneRole
    42. ProjectSequence
    43. ProjectTheme
    44. Protects
    45. ProtectslnContext
    46. ProtocolLayer
    47. RequiresCompetence
    48. ResourceConnector
    49. ResourceMessage
    50. ResourceMethod
    51. ResourceParameter
    52. ResourcePort
    53. ResourceStateDescription
    54. ResponsibleFor
    55. SameAs
    56. SecurityProperty
    57. ServiceConnector
    58. ServiceFunctionAction
    59. ServiceMessage
    60. ServiceMethod
    61. ServiceSpecificationRole
    62. ServiceStateDescription
    63. Statuslndicators
    64. StructuralPart
    65. TemporalPart
    66. VersionOfConfiguration
    67. VersionSuccession
    68. VisionStatement

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:23 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:16 GMT

Doc inconsistency between ActualOrganizationalResource & ActuralResponsibility

  • Key: UAF11-118
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <Submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 148) does not list
    ActualResponsibility as an ActualOrganizationaIResource. The diagram for ActualResponsibility (Figure 198, p 150) designates ActualResponsibility as an ActuaIOrganizationalResource. UAFSpecification needs to resolve this discrepancy.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:32 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Inconsistency between text/figure for ResponsibleRoleKind

  • Key: UAF11-121
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <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)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:48 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Unclear relationship between ActualProject and ActualPropertySet

  • Key: UAF11-122
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    In Figure 14 of the UAF Specification, the line between ActualProject and ActualPropertySet is missing. This relationship is also not reflected in Figure 185 (ActualProject). Not certain whether ActualProject is or is not an ActualPropertySet. Please clarify.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Document inconsistency between AssetRole and SecurityProperty

  • Key: UAF11-123
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:53 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Document inconsistency between EnterprisePhase and CapableElement

  • Key: UAF11-124
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:57 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Dual inheritance for ActualService is confusing

  • Key: UAF11-125
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <submission on behalf of James Johnson>
    ActualService (Figure 205) should not appear as both ActualPropertySet (Figure 14) and ActualMeasurementSet (figure 13) The dual inheritance is confusing. Please clarify

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:04 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Inclusion of additional CapableElements

  • Key: UAF11-128
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:17 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Constraint text for Figure 34 is incorrect.

  • Key: UAF11-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 34: The constraint text for Information’s annotatedElement role does not match the diagram. The text says it can only annotate ConceptItems but the diagram shows UAFElement. I believe the diagram is correct.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Multiplicity wrong for Actual Enterprise Phase: forecastPeriod tag

  • Key: UAF11-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 39: Actual Enterprise Phase: The forecastPeriod tag is set to 0..*, but it should be (I think) set to 0..1. This assumption is based on the textual description of forecast (which says “an EnterprisePhase”) and my understanding of what this is for.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:36 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:15 GMT

Figure 40 – Capability, shows CapabilityForTask twice

  • Key: UAF11-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 40 – Capability, shows CapabilityForTask twice.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:44 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:14 GMT

EnterpriseVision.statement should be derived or removed.

  • Key: UAF11-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 43: EnterpriseVision.statement should be derived or removed. EntepriseVision is connected to VisionStatements through the fact they annotate them (as shown on Figure 44) so a non-derived tag as well seems superfluous…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:47 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:14 GMT

Problems with Figure 49

  • Key: UAF11-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 49 for ActualEnduringTask shows that it is a valid supplier for the ResponsibleFor Abstraction. However, the definition for ResponsibleFor states (textually and diagrammatically) that only ActualProject and ActualResponsibility can be the supplier. I’m assuming Figure 49 is incorrect. We also don’t have ActualProjectMilestone in the text.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:14 GMT

Problem with Figure 214 for Strategic Roadmap

  • Key: UAF11-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 214 for Strategic Roadmap – Deployment shows a ResponsibleFor Abstraction going between an ActualResponsibleResource and an ActualProjectMilestone. Similar to the previous issue, this doesn’t appear to be allowed. Also, this is (as far as I can tell) so you can define who the Resources from the Milestone are being deployed to/removed from, but the name ResponsibleFor really doesn’t work and neither do any of the ResponsibleForKind literals. I think a new, different relationship should probably be added. At the moment, I can’t see a way to fulfil the requirements of this view.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:53 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:14 GMT

Figure103 for OrganizationalResource is missing some relationships.

  • Key: UAF11-45
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure103 for OrganizationalResource is missing some relationships. For example, RequiresCompetence.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:06 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:14 GMT

ResponsibleFor.ResponsibleRoleKind tag wrong.

  • Key: UAF11-46
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:09 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13 GMT

The ResourceRole.RoleKind tag should start with a lowercase letter.

  • Key: UAF11-47
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The ResourceRole.RoleKind tag should start with a lowercase letter.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:11 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13 GMT

ResourceInteractionKind should really be called ResourceExchangeKind.

  • Key: UAF11-48
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    ResourceInteractionKind should really be called ResourceExchangeKind.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13 GMT

OperationalExchange.trustlevel should be called OperationalExchange.trustLevel

  • Key: UAF11-49
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:15 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13 GMT

Figure 140 for DataModel doesn’t show an extension to a UML type.

  • Key: UAF11-52
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 140 for DataModel doesn’t show an extension to a UML type.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:22 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:13 GMT

InformationElements and DataElements location and constraints.

  • Key: UAF11-53
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:12 GMT

Figure 163 for Risk doesn’t show a specialization to Block

  • Key: UAF11-55
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 163 for Risk doesn’t show a specialization to Block but the text above the figure states that Risk does specialize Block.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:49 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:12 GMT

SecurityControlFamily has a constraint for annotedElement

  • Key: UAF11-57
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:54 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:12 GMT

SubjectOfSecurityConstraint doesn’t allow you to constrain any elements from the SecurityDomain

  • Key: UAF11-59
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:59 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:12 GMT

SubjectOfSecurityConstraint is specialized by Asset but not AssetRole

  • Key: UAF11-60
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    SubjectOfSecurityConstraint is specialized by Asset but not AssetRole – is this correct? (probably related to the previous question)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

Figure 179 for ActualProjectMilestone error

  • Key: UAF11-63
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:07 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

Figure 182 for Protocol should show the relationship to implementers.

  • Key: UAF11-64
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 182 for Protocol should show the relationship to implementers.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:08 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

ActualService doesn’t need to directly inherit from ActualPropertySet

  • Key: UAF11-65
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    ActualService doesn’t need to directly inherit from ActualPropertySet - is already indirectly inheriting via ActualMeasurementSet.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:10 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

Figure 260 for Security Processes issues.

  • Key: UAF11-70
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:20 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

CapabIlityProperty should be shown with Dependencies

  • Key: UAF11-73
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

Figure 277 for Services Connectivity should show provided/required interfaces

  • Key: UAF11-74
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 277 for Services Connectivity doesn’t show anything related to provided/required interfaces, as mentioned in the description for the view…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:27 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11 GMT

Figure 277 for Services Connectivity should show ServiceSpecificationRole

  • Key: UAF11-75
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 277 for Services Connectivity doesn’t show ServiceSpecificationRole, so you’re very unlikely to ever be able to show ServiceConnectors as part of this view…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:29 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:10 GMT

Operational agent should own operational operation.

  • Key: UAF11-76
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:38 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:10 GMT

Inconsistent naming for State Diagrams

  • Key: UAF11-93
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:09 GMT

Sc-Tx should be mapped to BDD

  • Key: UAF11-99
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:16 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:09 GMT

Sc-Pr example doesn’t match the specification.

  • Key: UAF11-100
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The Sc-Pr example doesn’t seem to match the specification. It’s showing SecurityControls related to Resources via Protects relationships, with Resources being related to SecurityControls with IsCapableToPerform relationships. There’s a few issues with this:
    a. Protects isn’t on the list of items to show in the view (though it probably should be as it isn’t listed anywhere).
    b. You can’t connect IsCapableToPerform relationships between Resources and SecurityControls – it goes from Resources to SecurityProcesses.
    c. You should be showing some SecurityProcess composition.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:19 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:03 GMT

The OwnsRiskInContext has the wrong constraint text

  • Key: UAF11-108
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The OwnsRiskInContext has the wrong constraint text (looks like it was copied and pasted from OwnsProcess).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:58 GMT

The changes to KnownResource don’t make any sense to me.

  • Key: UAF11-110
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:38 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:58 GMT

OwnsProcess should be shown on Figure 76.

  • Key: UAF11-111
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    OwnsProcess should be shown on Figure 76.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:40 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:58 GMT

ProtocolImplementation should be shown on Figure 182.

  • Key: UAF11-112
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    ProtocolImplementation should be shown on Figure 182.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:42 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:58 GMT

ServiceOperation should be shown on Figure 89.

  • Key: UAF11-114
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    ServiceOperation should be shown on Figure 89.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:46 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:57 GMT

Required Environment needs to be individual as opposed to type

  • Key: UAF11-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Required environment on the LocationHolder is currently linked to Environment which is a type. It does not make sense to link it to a type. Required environment needs to be linked to ActualEnvironment.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:57 GMT

Security Property name change

  • Key: UAF11-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Security Property name does not reflect the meaning of the concept. It needs to be renamed.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:57 GMT

ResponsibleFor relationship from Actual Responsible Resource to Actual Project Milestone is missing in the Responsible For diagram

  • Key: UAF11-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    ResponsibleFor relationship from Actual Responsible Resource to Actual Project Milestone is captured in Figure 222 - Strategic Roadmap: Deployment. It is required to build Strategic Roadmap: Deployment view. However, ResponsibleFor relationship from Actual Responsible Resource to Actual Project Milestone is not depicted in the following figures: Figure 113 - ResponsibleFor and Figure 186 - ActualProjectMilestone.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

Enteprise Phase should not be a subtype of capable element

  • Key: UAF11-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Actual Enterprise Phase is capable to exhibit capabilities. Enteprise Phase should not be capable doing that.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:51 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

Constraints [c] and [d] for Implements.supplier should be merged

  • Key: UAF11-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Page 43, under Figure 38: Constraints [c] and [d] for Implements.supplier should be merged together like the one above.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

Actual Enterprise Phase: Concern.systemConcern incorrect name.

  • Key: UAF11-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 39: Actual Enterprise Phase: Concern.systemConcern seems like the inverse name of what the tag should be. I’d expect it to be something like addressingPhase/addressedBy for Concern > EnterprisePhase and systemConcern (if we really must use that name) for EnteprisePhase > Concern…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:39 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

Figure 53 for Achiever shows AchievedEffect twice.

  • Key: UAF11-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 53 for Achiever shows AchievedEffect twice.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:02 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

SecurityControl can't be a specialization of PropertySet and Requirement

  • Key: UAF11-56
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    SecurityControl cannot be a specialization of PropertySet and a specialization of Requirement. The SysML 1.4 specification states Requirements can’t have ownedAttributes or be involved in Associations. This conflicts with PropertySet that has Measurements (Property). Also, Requirements can’t be used to “type any other element”, which is very vague, but could be read as it can’t be (amongst other things) the classifier for an InstanceSpecification (i.e. ActualPropertySet). Either SecurityControl shouldn’t be a Requirement or it can’t be a PropertySet…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:52 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:56 GMT

Figure 76 for OperationalActivity is missing OwnsProcess.

  • Key: UAF11-66
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 76 for OperationalActivity is missing OwnsProcess.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:12 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:55 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF11-107
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:33 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:51 GMT

Improve quality of DMM diagrams

  • Key: UAF11-276
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:45 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:39 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF11-106
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:35 GMT

OV-1b should be mapped to the SmOV

  • Key: UAF11-105
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:28 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:35 GMT

Ar-Sr should be mapped to BDD.

  • Key: UAF11-104
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    IBD mapped to Ar-Sr doesn’t make sense – you can’t show InstanceSpecifications on an IBD…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:34 GMT

Worked example structure needs changing

  • Key: UAF11-83
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The worked example is still structured as if it was UPDM – not UAF. It’s got Personnel Views listed under Operational Views, All Views with a mishmash of things under it (with All Views not even being a view in UAF). It’s massively out of date and confusing…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:16 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:33 GMT

Sd mappings are wrong in Annex B:

  • Key: UAF11-103
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:32 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:32 GMT

Pj mappings are wrong in Annex B

  • Key: UAF11-102
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:30 GMT

Implementation for Sv-Tr should be tabular.

  • Key: UAF11-98
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:13 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:28 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF11-94
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:54 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:28 GMT

Pr-Sr should be OV-4 typical

  • Key: UAF11-92
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Pr-Sr is not equivalent to OV-4 Actual – it doesn’t show any instances (i.e. Actual things)… I’m guessing the Pr-Sr should be equivalent to the OV-4 Typical and Actual, but the list of shown elements is wrong, as well as the mapping.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:26 GMT

There’s no example of the Sv-Rm view.

  • Key: UAF11-89
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    There’s no example of the Sv-Rm view.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:35 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:26 GMT

Ov-Ct and Sv-Ct recommended implementation should both be BDD

  • Key: UAF11-87
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:28 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:26 GMT

Sv-Pr implementation should be BDD and Activity diagram and table

  • Key: UAF11-86
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:23 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:25 GMT

There is no example of an Op-Tr.

  • Key: UAF11-85
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    There is no example of an Op-Tr.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:20 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:25 GMT

Worked example should have all diagrams.

  • Key: UAF11-84
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    There should ideally be an example of every recommended implementation for a diagram, so implementers have an idea of what is required – not just one of them.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:25 GMT

Op-Cn should be mapped to OV-2 and OV-3

  • Key: UAF11-80
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Op-Cn is mapped to OV-3 and OV-6, but only OV-3 would seem to make sense (especially since OV-6a/b/c are mapped to other diagram types).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:53 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:24 GMT

Mapping for UAF views to DoDAF/MODAF Views problem

  • Key: UAF11-82
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:03 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:24 GMT

Inconsistency between example and specification

  • Key: UAF11-81
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    There are inconsistencies between the worked example and the specification. Here are some examples:
    a. St-Tr Strategic Traceability
    i. States that the recommended implementation includes timeline, but the specification only states tabular and BDD.
    ii. It doesn’t include anything connecting things to ActualEnduringTasks.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:57 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:23 GMT

UAFP Inheritance from SysML issues.

  • Key: UAF11-77
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:41 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:21 GMT

Should have an IBD version for the Operational Taxonomy view

  • Key: UAF11-69
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:20 GMT

UAF is not considered DoDAF 2.02 compliant

  • Key: UAF11-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    Due to the missing mandate that UAF support DoDAF 2.02 views and viewpoints, for presenting content, UAF is considered non-compliant to DoDAF 2.02 by some. Require the implementation of the DoDAF perspective using UAF to provide DoDAF 2.02 Views for compliance.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:20 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:18 GMT

NAF 4 conformance

  • Key: UAF11-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Describe how UAF conforms to NAF 4 (when it is released).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:35 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:18 GMT

Update descriptions for MetaData row of Grid

  • Key: UAF11-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    need to add descriptions to Metada row

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:31 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:18 GMT

Add the UAF Metamodel on a page

  • Key: UAF11-22
  • 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, 5 Feb 2019 20:16 GMT

Add 3D representation of domain connectivity

  • Key: UAF11-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    From UAF patterns presentation.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:29 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:15 GMT

Update UAF Grid

  • Key: UAF11-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Move requirements row to be a column.
    Add recommended visulizations.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:28 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:13 GMT

Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), The Domain Metamodel document should not be marked as Appendix A for UAFP specification

  • Key: UAF11-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), The Domain Metamodel document needs to be primary UAF specification. Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) document needs to be Appendix for it.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:13 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:06 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:12 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:11 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:57 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:10 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:52 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:09 GMT

The diagram for OperationalObjectFlow does not show links to OperationalActivityAction

  • Key: UAF11-159
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    The diagram for OperationalObjectFlow (Figure 82) does not show links to OperationalActivityAction as does OperationalControlFlow (Figure 81). These should be consistent.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:07 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Achiever cannot be the same as Desirer

  • Key: UAF11-227
  • 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

The diagram for FunctionObjectFlow does not show links to FunctionAction

  • Key: UAF11-158
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    The diagram for FunctionObjectFlow (Figure 136) does not show links to FunctionAction as does FunctionControlFlow (Figure 134). These should be consistent.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:07 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Capabilty generalization should be Use Case

  • Key: UAF11-129
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Vencore ( John Gilbert)
  • Summary:

    Capability is currently a specialization of a SysML Block, but should be a specialization of a SysML Use Case — because the definition of a UAF Capability and a SysML Use Case both describe "what" can be achieved.

    Note1: Currently NOTHING in UAF is mapped to a SysML Use Case — and as a result, a core metamodel element in SysML cannot be mapped to UAF models.

    Note2: Combining different SysML metaclasses (eg: Use Cases and Blocks) in the UAFP, creates difficulties in numbering elements in a UAF model — when using tools where automatic numbering is managed at the metaclass level.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:02 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Inconsistency between spec and implementation

  • Key: UAF11-127
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <submission on behalf of James Johnson>
    Cameo includes representations for OperationalAction, ResourceAction, SecurityControlAction and ServiceAction. The UAF Specification does not show these items. Please clarify whether the specification is correct and notify No Magic to remove these items, or update the UAF Specification to include these items.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:13 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Inconsistency between spec and implementation

  • Key: UAF11-126
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Missing Metaclass designation in documentation

  • Key: UAF11-120
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    In the UAF Specification, OperationalExchangeltem and ResourceExchangeltem do not belong to a Metaclass. All UAF elements should belong to a Metaclass.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:42 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

No diagram representation exists for some model elements

  • Key: UAF11-119
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    <Submitted on behalf of James Johnson>
    No diagram exists in the UAF Specification for ActualMeasurementKind, LocationKind,ActualMiIestoneKind, RoleKind, LocationTypeKind, OperationalExchangeKind, ResourcelnteractionKind, InformationKind, ResponsibleRoleKind, RuleKind,GeoPoliticalExtentTypeKind, ProjectKind, or WholeLifeConfigurationKind. This is inconsistent with providing diagrams for all other UAF Elements.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:39 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Problem with ServiceMessageHandler

  • Key: UAF11-115
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    ServiceMessageHandler looks to have been removed because AsynchronousMessage is no longer being used. However, now that OperationalSignal, etc, have been added, we need Receptions to link the Signals to the Performers that can handle them. Looks like something important has been missed.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:49 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

ProvidesCompetence should also be an abstraction.

  • Key: UAF11-113
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    RequiresCompetence has been changed to an Abstraction and set to specialize Allocate but ProvidesCompetence hasn’t. Is that a mistake?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:44 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

XMI has ProjectActivityAction and CallBehaviourAction – shouldn’t include Activity.

  • Key: UAF11-109
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The XMI has ProjectActivityAction extending Activity and CallBehaviourAction – shouldn’t include Activity.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:37 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Rs-Rm implementations should be matrix/tabular and BDD.

  • Key: UAF11-97
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Rs-Rm looks to have a copy and paste error. It shouldn’t have recommended implementations as timeline, IBD and BDD – it should be matrix/tabular and BDD.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:06 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

OrganizationalResources should not be on a Rs-Tx

  • Key: UAF11-96
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    It doesn’t make sense to show OrganizationalResources on a Rs-Tx, as there’s a specific Pr-Tx view for that.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:04 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Pr-Tx should not show structure, just generalizations.

  • Key: UAF11-95
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The example for the Pr-Tx is incorrect. It’s only supposed to show generalizations, not structure. Structure is supposed to be shown on the Pr-Sr.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:59 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Typo in the figure 235 text.

  • Key: UAF11-91
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Typo in the figure 235 text.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:46 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Sv-Tr should be matrix/tabular and BDD.

  • Key: UAF11-90
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Sv-Tr looks to have a copy and paste error. It shouldn’t have recommended implementations as timeline, IBD and BDD – it should be matrix/tabular and BDD.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:37 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

St-Rm should be mapped to an Object Diagram

  • Key: UAF11-88
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    St-Rm mapped to IBD doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t show parts anywhere, just instances. This should be mapped to an Object Diagram instead.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:34 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Op-Tx should be IBD

  • Key: UAF11-79
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Op-Tx has a recommended implementation of BDD – it should be IBD, as it’s for showing ArbitraryConnector relationships (Dependencies) between ConceptRoles (Properties), which you can’t do on a BDD.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 01:51 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Energy should be restored to the UAF.

  • Key: UAF11-78
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Energy is mentioned in a few places in the UAF specification, in particular around Exchanges. However, the Energy stereotype no longer exists and doesn’t appear to have been replaced by anything. I’m think this is a mistake.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:43 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Security Constraints inconsistency

  • Key: UAF11-72
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 261 for Security Constraints shows SecurityContol and EnhancedSecurityControl, etc, but the elements list does not. I’m assuming the diagram is correct.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:24 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Figure 262 shows an invalid relationship

  • Key: UAF11-71
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 262 shows an invalid relationship. OwnsRisk is shown going between ResourceRole and Risk, when it should go between ResourcePerformer and Risk. OwnsRiskInContext goes between ResourceRole and Risk though… Same for Affects, etc, too.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:21 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Abstract stereotypes in the Elements list within Annex A

  • Key: UAF11-68
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Listing abstract stereotypes in the Elements list within Annex A, when they’re only shown in the figure to get inherited features is potentially misleading. For example, Figure 128 for Operational Structure lists Asset, but I’m imagining you wouldn’t want every kind of Asset displayed for this View, just the specific specializations that are also listed (e.g. OperationalPerformer, etc).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:17 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF11-67
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

ActualProject specialization wrong

  • Key: UAF11-62
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 178 for ActualProject shows it specializing ActualOrganizationalResource and Achiever, but the text states ActualPropertySet and Achiever. Based on the XMI, I believe the figure is correct and the text is wrong.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:05 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Inconsistency with Project

  • Key: UAF11-61
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Project is still documenting (both textually and diagrammatically) the UAF Beta 1 version of Project – not the UAF Beta 2 version. In the XMI, Project specializes Block and OrganizationalResource, but in the spec, it still shows Block, Desirer and PropertySet… I’m assuming the XMI is correct, as other ProjectMilestoneRole would be wrong (since that specializes ResourceRole).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:03 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Abstract stereotypes shouldn't have extensions.

  • Key: UAF11-58
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    More of a question than an issue, but why have extensions for abstract stereotypes? You’re never going to apply them to anything so why bother? If anything, it confuses things as some people argue extensions are inherited…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:56 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Problem with EnhancedSecurityControl inheritance

  • Key: UAF11-54
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Enhance is set to subtype DeriveReqt and goes between SecurityControl and EnhancedSecurityControl. This is not allowed in SysML as DeriveReqt is constrained to go between Requirements only (i.e. Classes), but EnhancedSecurityControl extends Activity. Even if the whole extension/inheritance are/aren’t inherited by sub Stereotypes, it doesn’t make sense that EnhancedSecurityControl has a different metatype. I think EnchancedSecurityControl was just not updated when SecurityControl was (i.e. it was left as it was in Beta 1).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:48 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Inconsistency with SecurityProcess and ProjectActivity

  • Key: UAF11-51
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Since SecurityProcess and ProjectActivity are subtypes of Function, this would seem to imply that you can use them both wherever you use a Function. It isn’t clear if this is deliberate or an accident… If it’s deliberate, it might be worth mentioning them on things like the view definitions for things like the Op-Pr and Rs-Pr…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:20 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Constraints for ResourceInteractionKind.ResourceEnergyFlow don’t make sense

  • Key: UAF11-50
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    The constraints for ResourceInteractionKind.ResourceEnergyFlow doesn’t make sense, as NaturalResource could be (according to the specification) any resource that occurs in nature such as oil, water, gas or coal. Saying that a ResourceExchange that conveys water is not saying it conveys energy… Plus, I’d argue that energy (in terms of an architecture) isn’t something that occurs in nature – it’s “power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines”. This takes me back to saying that it seems like Energy should have been left in UAF again…

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:17 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Figure 51 for EnduringTask is missing inheritance to SysML::Block

  • Key: UAF11-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 51 for EnduringTask is missing inheritance to SysML::Block.
    Hmmm. It is in our version. Please check.
    I think I know what’s happened here. I’ve been using the UAF Beta 2 spec with change bars. However, that seems to have a few differences to the version of the spec without changebars (just re-downloaded both and checked).

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Actual Enterprise Phase: Concern.systemConcern should be 0..1

  • Key: UAF11-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Figure 39: Actual Enterprise Phase: Should Concern.systemConcern be 0..1 like the text implies?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:42 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Inconsistency with Constraint [e] for Implements.supplier

  • Key: UAF11-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PTC ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Page 43, under Figure 38: Constraint [e] for Implements.supplier says a ResourceConnector implements an OperationalConnector or ResourceConnector? Why? I understand Resource to Operational but why Resource to Resource? If it’s to show different levels of abstraction, then shouldn’t the same be available for Operational to Operational?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Definition of FunctionAction is too tight

  • Key: UAF11-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    Is it necessary for the definition of FunctionAction (and other actions as well) to extend CallBehaviorAction. What about other actions such as accept event action and wait time action? Could the stereotypes in UAFP which today extend the call behaviour action, be changed to extend the more general action instead?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:48 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Consumes relationship is facing wrong direction

  • Key: UAF11-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Consumes relationship direction needs to be reversed ant renamed to "Supports". This change was discussed and agreed some time ago, but for some reason it did not get into UAF 1.0.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 21:19 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Stereotypes for flowProperties

  • Key: UAF11-27
  • 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Concpetual mapping between UAF DMM and Archimate elements

  • Key: UAF11-26
  • 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

UAF compliance criteria for Toolvendors

  • Key: UAF11-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Graham Bleakley)
  • Summary:

    Add UAF compliance criteria for Toolvendors

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:33 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF11-17
  • 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

Ovierview picture (UAF Grid Overview)

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:51 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

conformsTo is missing

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b1 — Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:13 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:59 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:
    • Example.xlsx 30 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet)

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

  • Key: UAF11-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:36 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

  • Key: UAF11-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:34 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

  • Key: UAF11-8
  • 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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

  • Key: UAF11-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

Provide Vendor Neutral exchange format of the UAF DMM

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

    Entered on behalf of Torsten Graeber

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:09 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:03 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:35 GMT

CapabilityForTask is duplicated on the Capability diagram (Figure 40)

  • Key: UAF11-150
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    CapabilityForTask is duplicated on the Capability diagram (Figure 40)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:01 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:30 GMT

There should be a depiction for ServiceObjectFlow and ServiceControlFlow,

  • Key: UAF11-160
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    There should be a depiction for ServiceObjectFlow and ServiceControlFlow, tied to ServiceFunctionAction, to be consistent with OperationalActivityAction and FunctionAction

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:08 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 14:19 GMT

Inconsistent depiction of VisionStatement

  • Key: UAF11-152
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    There is an inconsistent depiction of VisionStatement between the VisionStatement diagram (Figure 44) and the EnterpriseVision diagram (Figure 43)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:02 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:24 GMT

Operational Architecture cannot own Operational Port

  • Key: UAF11-204
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

    Class for Operational Port is constrained to be Operational Performer, which means that Operational Architecture cannot own it. Class for Operational Port meeds to be Operational Agent.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:31 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 08:05 GMT

The UAFElement stereotype has multiple child stereotypes but none appear on the diagram.

  • Key: UAF11-147
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    1) The UAFElement stereotype has multiple child stereotypes but none appear on the diagram. UAFElement children include:
    a. LocationHolder
    b. MeasureableElement
    c. PropertySet
    d. ActualState
    e. ISO8601DateTime
    f. CapableElement
    g. Achiever
    h. Desirer
    i. ConceptItem
    j. SubjectOfOperationalConstraint
    k. SubjectOfResourceConstraint
    l. SubjectOfSecurityConstraint
    m. SubjectOfForecast
    n. VersionedElement
    o. ProtocolImplementation
    p. AssetRole
    q. ProjectStatus
    r. ActualResourceRole
    s. ActualResourceRelationship
    t. Architecture
    u. Stakeholder

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:59 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:02 GMT

2) The ServiceFunction diagram (Figure 96) is depicted different then the Operational Activity diagram Figure 78) and the Function diagram (Figure 132)

  • Key: UAF11-148
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    The ServiceFunction diagram (Figure 96) is depicted different then the Operational Activity diagram Figure 78) and the Function diagram (Figure 132). For OperationalActivity and Function the Implements and IsCapableToPerform relationships is depicted with a stereotype while for the ServiceFunction these same relationships ae depicted as stereotyped relationships. There should be some consistency between the three diagrams.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:02 GMT

Diagram Consistency

  • Key: UAF11-149
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    The OperationalExchange diagram (Figure 73) uses Implements as a stereotyped relationship, not as a stereotype There should be some consistency for all diagrams.

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:01 GMT

AchievedEffect is duplicated on the Achiever diagram (Figure 53)

  • Key: UAF11-151
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    AchievedEffect is duplicated on the Achiever diagram (Figure 53)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:02 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:00 GMT

ProjectRole (Figure 177) does not show as a child of ResourceRole (Figure125)

  • Key: UAF11-153
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    ProjectRole (Figure 177) does not show as a child of ResourceRole (Figure125)

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:03 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:00 GMT

On Figure 186, there is no line between ActualOrganizationalResource and ActualProjectMilestone

  • Key: UAF11-154
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    On Figure 186, there is no line between ActualOrganizationalResource and ActualProjectMilestone

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:59 GMT

Text for ActualMilestoneKind refers to ActualMeasurements instead of ActualProjectMilestone

  • Key: UAF11-155
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    Text for ActualMilestoneKind refers to ActualMeasurements instead of ActualProjectMilestone

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:58 GMT

ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 194) has no Metaclass

  • Key: UAF11-156
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 194) has no Metaclass

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:05 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:58 GMT

Multiple diagrams show inconsistencies between themselves

  • Key: UAF11-157
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Perspecta ( Andre Kiebuzinski)
  • Summary:

    Multiple diagrams show inconsistencies between themselves, including
    a. Metadata (Figure 35) shows a link to UAFElement, but UAFElement (Figure 214) does not show link to Metadata
    b. Implements (Figure 38) shows a link to ResourceConnector, but ResourceConnector (Figure 126) does not show link to Implements
    c. CapableElement (Figure 30) shows a link to EnterprisePhase, but EnterprisePhase (Figure 42) does not show link to CapableElement
    d. ActualEnduringTask (Figure 49) shows a link to ResponsibleFor, but ResponsibleFor (Figure 113) does not show link to ActualEnduringTask
    e. ConceptRole (Figure 61) shows a link to HighLevelOperationalConcept, but HighLevelOperationalConcept (Figure 62) does not show link to ConceptRole
    f. OperationalStateDescription (Figure 84) shows a link to OperationalAgent, but OperationalAgent (Figure 64) does not show link to OperationalStateDescription
    g. ServiceSpecification (Figure 89) shows a link to ServiceInterface, but ServiceInterface (Figure 95) does not show link to ServiceSpecification
    h. ServiceMethod (Figure 90) shows a link to ServiceParameter, but ServiceParameter (Figure 91) does not show link to ServiceMethod
    i. ServiceParameter (Figure 91) shows a link to OperationalExchange, but OperationalExchange (Figure 74) does not show link to ServiceParameter
    j. Consumes (Figure 101) shows a link to OperationalActivity, but OperationalActivity (Figure 78) does not show link to Consumes
    k. Command (Figure 107) and Control (Figure 108) show a link to DataElement, but DataElement (Figure 139) does not show links to Command or Control
    l. CompetenceForRole (Figure 111) shows a link to Competence, but Competence (Figure 110) does not show link to CompetenceForRole
    m. RequiresCompetence (Figure 112) shows a link to OrganizationalResource, but OrganizationalResource (Figure 103) does not show link to RequiresCompetence
    n. ResponsibleFor (Figure 113) shows a link to ActualProject, but ActualProject (Figure 185) does not show link to ResponsibleFor
    o. ResourceRole (Figure 125) shows a link to ActualOrganizationRole, but ActualOrganizationRole (Figure 201) does not show link to ResourceRole
    p. ResourceConnector (Figure 126) shows a link to Environment, but Environment (Figure 15) does not show link to ResourceConnector
    q. VersionedElement (Figure 146) shows a link to ActualProjectMilestone, but ActualProjectMilestone (Figure 186) does not show link to VersionedElement
    r. ProtocolImplementation (Figure 150) shows a link to Protocol, but Protocol (Figure 189) does not show link to ProtocolImplementation
    s. Asset (Figure 151) shows a link to MeasurementSet, but MeasurementSet (Figure 23) does not show link to Asset
    t. SecurityProperty (Figure 156) shows a link to AssetRole, but AssetRole (Figure 170) does not show link to SecurityProperty
    u. ActualRisk (Figure 163) shows a link to ActualResponsibleResource, but ActualResponsibleResource (Figure 199) does not show link to ActualRisk
    v. OwnsRisk (Figure 172) shows a link to OrganizationalResource, but OrganizationalResource (Figure 103) does not show link to OwnsRisk
    w. Project (Figure 174) shows a link to OrganizationalResource, but OrganizationalResource (Figure 103) does not show link to Project
    x. ActualProject (Figure 184) shows a link to ActualResponsibleResource, but ActualResponsibleResource (Figure 199) does not show link to ActualProject
    y. ActualProjectMilestone (Figure 186) shows a link to ActualOrganizationalResource, but ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 194) does not show link to ActualProjectMilestone
    z. ActualResponsibility (Figure 198) shows a link to ActualOrganizationalResource, but ActualOrganizationalResource (Figure 194) does not show link to ActualResponsibility
    aa. ActualResourceRole (Figure 202) shows a link to ResourceRole, but ResourceRole (Figure 125) does not show link to ActualResourceRole
    bb. OwnsProcess (Figure 209) shows a link to OperationalActivity, but OperationalActivity (Figure 78) does not show link to OwnsProcess

  • Reported: UAF 1.0 — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:06 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:58 GMT

Constraint uses wrong name

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

    Constraints OwnsProcess.* should be renamed to OwnsRiskInContext.*

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