Summary Fig 14 & Fig 16 - Consistent Profile Usage. Fig 16 shows which Metaclass is being extended. Figure 14 does not. Suggest metaclasses be shown (even at the cost of making the diagrams busy).
Diagram All
Document Issue UPDM (OMG Beta) Jan 2009
Section
Page
Priority Low
Source Ian BaileyModel Futuresian@modelfutures.com
Date 3rd March 2009
Rationale
Resolution POTENTIAL SOLUTION:If supported by MagicDraw, we should add a compartment to each of the symbols to indicate the extended element (where the extension is not shown on the diagram). Adding the extensions to all of the diagrams would make it pretty much unreadable.Andrius to confirm whether this is possible.

Fig19 - More Needed Here. Can you also add ExternalTuple (under OntologyReference), and ExternalTupleType (under ExternalType)? This is to allow references to relationships defined in the ontology. We missed this in MODAF, and is now causing us problems. Would be really great if you could fix it in UPDM. Thanks.
Diagram AV
Document Issue UPDM (OMG Beta) Jan 2009

Resolution It makes sense to add this as it gives us a complete mapping to IDEAS. We'll look at incorporating this into the next version of UPDM.

Original

MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management GroupTM, OMGTM , Unified Modeling LanguageTM, Model Driven Architecture LogoTM, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI LogoTM, CWMTM, CWM LogoTM, IIOPTM , MOFTM , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL)TM, and OMG SysMLTM are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Revised

MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management Group ™, OMG ™ , Unified Modeling Language ™, Model Driven Architecture Logo ™, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI Logo ™, CWM ™, CWM Logo ™, IIOP ™ , MOF ™ , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL) ™, and OMG SysML ™ are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Rationale Need correct format
Resolution Fixed TM

Missing contents of DoDAF class library section, they need to be extracted from the model

Duplicate 16087, 16027, closed issue

Diagram Affected sections
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::AllElements::Structure missing
description (for example "The structural aspects of the AllElements
profile").
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::OperationalElements description should
be laid out correctly.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AcquisitionElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Behavior missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Environment missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Measurements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM
L0::DoDAF::OperationalElements::Structure::Organizational missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::StrategicElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::TechnicalStandardsElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::TechnicalStandardsElements::Data
missing description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::MODAF::AllElements::Environment missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM
L0::MODAF::OperationalElements::Structure::Organizational missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::MODAF::TechnicalStandardsElements
missing description.
PV-3 DMM diagram missing description.
Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt,
After: 0 pt
Formatted Table
Formatted: Font: 14 pt
Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt,
After: 0 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
UPDM 2.0 FTF
Disposition: Resolved
Missing descriptions
Document dtc/2011-065-01 Page 313
SV-5/SvcV-5 - DMM diagram missing description.
CV-7 - DMM diagram missing description.

Rationale Aids readability
Resolution Add text beneath the section heading indicated in the revised
text.

Add DoDAF class library diagram and relevant elements to documentation.

Rationale Needed to view the supporting elements for DoDAF
around measurement sets and the security attributes
group
Resolution Create DoDAF class library diagram and populate with
elements from the class library.

Enables developers and users to understand what elements sensiby appear on the relevant UPDM views

Rationale Enables developers and users to understand what
elements sensibly appear on the relevant UPDM views
Resolution Add non-normative appendix of UPDM views.
Add the UPDM views in Annex B Chapter 10
(wholeModel.doc) into Annex B complete doc

Rationale Need to simplify the profile
Resolution Replace section 8.3.1.1 Project both diagram and associated text
that is there now with the diagram and text from section
8.2.1.1.1.1.5 ProjectType (after revision of class and classifier
roles).
Remove section 8.2.1.2.1.1 Project and associated text
Remove 8.2.1.1.1.1.5 ProjectType

Missing SWAF design rules and SOPEs diagrams from DMM section of documentation

Rationale Completeness of the spec
Resolution Add SOPES section 9.2 from wholemodel doc to end
of annex A
ADD SWAF section 9.3 from whole model doc to end of annex
A after SOPES

Rationale Enables DoDAF 2.0 users familiar with DM2 to see the
relatioship between DM2 and UPDM 2
Resolution Added normative appendix containing diagrams
Activity, Capability,Goals, Information and data,
Location, Measure, Naming and Description,
Performer, Project, Resource flow, Rules, Services,
Training skill and education.
Add Section Annex A 9.4 from whole model .doc after the new
section 9.3 (Swaf section) in the complete model.doc

Description:

1. Strike "DoDAF 2.0" and replace with "DoDAF 2.02" throughout the section.

2. Add paragraph. "UPDM 2.0 aims to conform with DoDAF 2.02 at Level Two (2). DoDAF has defined four levels of conformance:
1) Conceptual Conformance;
2) Logical (Meta Model) Conformance(where there is a mapping to the terms & relationships of DM2 logical data model (LDM);
3)Physical (Physical Exchange Specification) Conformance; and
4) full Semantic Conformance.

3. Add paragraph. The DoD-CIO has clarified in a Decision Brief of 12 Jan 11 that it does not expect UPDM 2.0 to achieve Level 4 conformance. Level 4 may require full implementation of 4D (geo-spatial-temporal modeling)including a global implementation of Whole-Part and Temporal-Whole-Part for all UPDM elements (classes/objects). The discussion of Level 4 Conformance has been deferred until UPDM 3.0.

No Data Available

"6.1.1 Statement of support from the DoD representative" (Make Request to Mr. Levine for DoD EA for IT Standards and to Mr. Okon for DoD-CIO) and "6.1.2 Statement of support from the MOD representative" (Request to Mr. Patrick Gorman)

In re 6.1.1, I expect to respond with U.S. DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards position. Namely, UPDM Version 1.0's status as "MANDATED" for those following DoDAF 1.5; my intent to submit UPDM 2.0 as "EMERGING" as soon as OMG AB approves (anticipated for March 2011). Will note status of DoDAF 2.02 (August 2010) in DoD. Will note that UPDM DMM is aligned with DoDAF MM (DM2) as of DoDAF 2.02 via mapping matrix. Also will note status of constituent specifications UML & SysML & other?. Finally, will note UPDM 1.1 status related to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) – being submitted AND our expectation that UPDM 2.1 will also be submitted to ISO. If OMG UPDM Group wishes to clarify other areas, please submit with request.

Rationale Helps jsutify UPDM with support from MOD, DOD
and SWAF
Resolution working on getting support from authorities

5 Symbols/Acronyms

DM2 DoDAF Meta Model
DMM UPDM Domain Meta Model
PES DoDAF Physical Exchange Specification

No Data Available

Either as an additional non-normative Annex or as a separte document, please publish the UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix. This spreadsheet matrix is essential to OMG UPDM Group's claim that UPDM 2.0 specification "conforms" with DoDAF MetaModel (DM2) at the proposed Level 2 (metamodel conformance). Tool vendors will also be able to facilitate their conformance using this as a checklist. Such a published matrix will also facilitate the work of vendors who wish to conform with the DoDAF Physical Exchange Specification (PES) – which is either an alternative or supplement to OMG's MODEL exchange via XMI. PES is DATA oriented and available to non-OMG-UML vendors. A tool that conformed to both DM2 and PES would conform to the proposed Level 3 for DoDAF.

Rationale I think this relates to the UPDM Profile rather than the
DMM, the table is updated to cover mappings between
UPDM, DODAF 2.0 and MODAF 1.2.0.4
Resolution Replace section Table B1 UPDM Elements to
DoDF1.5/MODAF with contents of UPDM Element
mapping to DoDAF 2 V1 doc

Merge MODAF and DODAF concepts for projects to allow Milestones and ProjectActivities to work togther

Rationale The DoDAF and MODAF ways of dealing with AcV-2
and PV-2 are different, we need a way to tie them
together
Resolution Allow a specialization of Activities to represented as
ProjectActivities and tied to Projects.

Description:

Reference:
"Issue 15847: Publish UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix (updm-2-0-ftf)"

Add paragraph or sentence.
"The UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix has been published as non-normative Annex [EDIT] of the specification to aid tool vendors in their claims to DoDAF Level 2 Conformance. This matrix should also facilitate upgrades to Level 3 and 4 of DoDAF Conformance in future versions of UPDM."

The traceability lies between the DoDAF 2.0.2 metamodel and
the UPDM profile rather than the DMM. The terms in the DMM
are similar if not identical to the DoDAF Metamodel. The
statement will be altered to reflect this
The UPDM Profile to DoDAF MetaModel

Description:

STRIKE in entirely the Old text, "6.2.2 Organization of this Specification
DoDAF and MODAF are specifically organized around a set of viewpoints and views that address the concerns of a well-defined set of stakeholders. This specification organizes the presentation of the UPDM 2.0 abstract and concrete syntax around those viewpoints, so that the discussion is well-connected to their domain expertise. (See Section 1.5 for a more detailed description.)"

Substitute:
DoDAF and MODAF are formally expressed as domain-specific meta-models known as the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) and the MODAF Meta Model (M3) respectively. There is also a set of viewpoints and views that address the concerns of a well-defined set of stakeholders. Before DoDAF Version 2.0 and UPDM Version 2.0, these were the organizing factors. This is no longer the case. This specification organizes the presentation of the UPDM 2.0 abstract and concrete syntax around the meta-models, with effort made to establish a maximum set of common Core models and a minimum set of DoDAF DM2 or MODAF M3 specific models. Significant effort has also been made to continue to support the now over 50 viewpoints that can be derived from these meta-models as well as "user-defined views". This is done so that the discussion is well-connected to the domain experts required to produce these views. (See Section 1.5 for a more detailed description.)"

see pages 184 - 185 of issue dtc/2011-06-12

The format of the submitted XMI is XML and in proprietary rich XMI format. This appears to be unreadable by at least two common UML tools RSA and Rhapsody.

XMI has been updated to be compliant to the OMG
standard format

Update the Sample Problem. Pay particular attention to those MODELS, Elements or items that were still in development by DoD and MOD in the year before DoDAF 2.02 (approx. Sep 09 - Aug 10) with some resolutions between UPDM DMM (domain metamodel), DoDAF Meta Model (DM2), and in part IDEAS group. A critical list should be developed and coordinated with US DM2 Working Group Chair (Mr. McDaniels) and other interested parties.

3 Normative References. Add reference to DoDAF MetaModel (DM2) Version 2.02 of August 2008 specifically. You may need to use a web citation. Rationale: UPDM 2.0 Domain Meta Model (DMM) MUST conform to the DoDAF Meta Model 2.02 rather than 2.00 for various technical reasons.

Bibliography, Annex D, Page 431. Citation of DoDAF should be to Version 2.0 for all three 3) volumes. Citations of DoDAF MetaModel specific Version 2.02 as should DoDAF PES Version 2.02 should be added

Resolution WORKING: Need new Links

Resource simplification (i.e. can we just have one Property stereotype for all Resources and just leave the others as optional aliases for MODAF)?

see pages 140 - 163 od dtc/2011-06-12

ServiceAccess completion:
a. How to make it work with SOAML (e.g. should it be the only thing that can realize a ServiceInterface)?
b. Stereotypes for owned Properties (and decomposition constraints)?
SOAML completion:
a. Final mapping between MODAF and SOAML.
b. Name changes to make things compatible (or leave as aliases if the proper names are going to confuse things too much)?

see pages 109 - 139 of dtc/2011-06-12

Need to show relationship between effects desired the desirer and the desired state that achieve that effect

Rationale Need to show relationship between effects desired the
desirer and the desired state that achieve that effect
Resolution Added Desirer, DesiredEffect, and Operational and
ResourceState

Modify relationship between EntityItems and ExchangeElements to give a more graphical view of the mapping

Rationale More graphical view of the mapping
Resolution Add dependency “Details” between entityitems and
exchangeElements

Add cosntructs for naming and representation where required

Rationale Need to map representations of information into
UPDM
Resolution Define Information, SameAs and InformationKind to
define types of information

need to define Measurement enumerations and model library, DM2

Rationale Need to Simplify DoDAF Measures to align with UML
Resolution Added MeasurementSet, MeasureType and Measure to
allow synchronisation with DoDAF 2

Add NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind

Rationale Missing from list of AFs
Resolution Modify the element ArchitectureFrameworkKind by adding
NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind.
Added ArchitectureFrameworkKind to ArchitecturalDescription
Diagram for clairification.

UPDMElement has more meaning that Element

see pages 8 - 108 of dtc/2011-06-12

Suggest enum be used to define locationkinds

Rationale Too many types of location elements location
taxonomy in DM2, needs to be simplified to reduce
complexity
Resolution Added LocationKind, LocationTypeKind,
GeoPoliticalExtentKind and
GeopoliticalExtentTypeKind with enumarated literals
that map to DM2 types of Location and
GeopoliticalExtent

Needed to change the way that ActualProjects relate to the actualProjectMilestones so that it is more UML like

Rationale Needed to change the way that ActualProjects relate to
the actualProjectMilestones so that it is more UML like
Resolution Added ProjectMilestoneRole as an
InstanceSpecification and ActualProjectMilestoneRole

Update SysML mapping and OCL to SySML 1.2

Rationale Align mapping of elements to SysML 1.2
Resolution Changes to SysML mapping table and XMI version
2.1.1

Add security attributes group as model library to Profile

Rationale No SecurityAttributes in UPDM
Resolution Added SecurityAttributesModel to UPDM
16027
Add