United Architecture Framework Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

United Architecture Framework — Open Issues

  • Acronym: UAF
  • Issues Count: 12
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

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: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:44 GMT

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

  • Key: UAF12-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:05 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:44 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: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:44 GMT

Stereotypes for flowProperties

  • Key: UAF12-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Aurelijus Morkevicius)
  • Summary:

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

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

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: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 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: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 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, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 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, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 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, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 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, 9 Jul 2019 14:16 GMT

Security Property name change


Required Environment needs to be individual as opposed to type