Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) Draft Timetable As

Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) Draft Timetable As

Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) Draft Timetable As of June 2013 Matthew Hause, UAFP Group Co-Chair (Atego) Graham Bleakley UAFP Group Co-Chair (IBM) Lonnie Van Zandt UAFP Group Co-Chair (No Magic) June 2013 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile OMG Technology Adoption Process - RFP OMG technology adoptions revolve around the RFP, or Request for Proposals: The issuing of an RFP by vote of a Technical Committee (TC) officially starts the adoption process running. The RFP itself is the requirements document for the future specification. The RFP lists the original deadline dates for each stage of the adoption process. OMG members are companies or organizations. Companies that respond to RFPs are referred to as submitters or submitting companies. UAFP Group Briefing

June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 2 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile OMG Technology Adoption Process - FTF Once the specification is adopted by the OMG, the TC charters a Finalization Task Force (FTF). The FTF performs the first maintenance revision on the specification, resolving issues submitted to OMG, while simultaneously producing implementations back in their companies. The FTF-revised version of the specification is adopted as official OMG technology. This time it receives a release number, and is designated an available specification. The document is edited into a formal OMG specification. Typically, products supporting the specification reach the market around this time too. UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 3 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile OMG Technology Adoption Process - RTF Once approved, a recurring maintenance cycle starts. The TC charters a Revision Task Force (RTF) and sets deadlines for its report and specification revision. The RTF collects and acts on issues submitted to OMG,

producing a revised specification. The revised specification is adopted through the series of votes. A new RTF is chartered, and the process repeats. UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 4 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Why Whyand andWhen: When:Historical HistoricalDevelopment Developmentof ofAFs. AFs. MODAF Meta-Model (M3) expressed using UML Notation C4ISR Architecture Framework v2.0 2005

2008 2007 2005 MODAF v1.0 DNDAF v1.7 NAF v3.1 NAF v1.0 MODAF v1.1 2007 MODAF v1.2 2008 DoDAF

V2.0 2009 1997 C4ISR Architecture Framework v1.0 DoDAF v1.0 1996 UAFP Group Briefing 2003 DoDAF v1.5 Scope of UPDM 1.0 Approved Sept 2008 2007 June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 5 Scope of UPDM 2.0 ETC June 2011

UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Draft UPDM 2.0 (2.1/2.2) Roadmap UPDM 2.x Maintenance Revisions UPDM 2.1 RTF Charter June 2011 UPDM 2.1 RTF: Completed & Submitted to OMG Dec 2012 UPDM 2.1 OMG will Issue Specification ~June 2013 UPDM 2.1 Submitted to ISO for adoption. --------------------------UPDM 2.2 RTF Charter Dec 2012 Necessary due to MIWG XMI issues Ongoing fixes UPDM 2.2 RTF: Completed & Submitted to OMG Mar 2014 UPDM 2.2 OMG will Issue Specification ~June 2014 UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 6 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile

Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (1 of 4) Charter UAFP 1.0 RFP Issued September 2013 Name change to Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) Current version of DoDAF 2.0x MODEM 1.0 (Previously called MODAF) Current Version of NATO Architecture Framework Canadian DNDAF (Depending on participation of members) Other frameworks may be supported depending on participation of members. Priorities for requirements will be based on demand and participation of members UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 7 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (2 of 4)

Mandatory Requirements Provide Domain Metamodel derived from MODEM (Abstract Syntax and Constraints) Profile at 2 levels of compliance, L0 consisting of UML 2.5 Extending SysML 1.4, and L1 using BPMN 2.0 or version 1.0 of the UML Profile for BPMN Architecture Modeling Support for Defense and Civilian Government, and Industry Organizations Use of SysML Requirements Elements and Diagrams Use of SysML Parametrics Elements and Diagrams mapped to Measurements in UAFP Support for Data and Information Viewpoint, Views and Artifacts: Conceptual, Logical, And Physical Schema Models Impact Assessment for Backward Compatibility with UPDM 2.x Requirements Traceability Matrix to supported frameworks Example Architecture Description Matrix of Applicable UAFP Elements and Relationships For Each Presentation Artifact Model Interchange UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 8 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (3 of 4) Non-Mandatory Requirements UML Profile for NIEM Information Exchange Packaging Policy Vocabulary Support for Views and Artifacts in Support of SoS Life Cycle Processes and Analyses

Export to RDF Human Systems Integration (HSI) Diagram Definition Specification Architecture data mappings and transformations UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 9 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Draft UAFP 1.0 (UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (4 of 4) UAFP 1.0 RFP Response: Initial submission to OMG September 2014 Revised submission to OMG December 2014 UAFP 1.0 FTF (Finalization Task Force) Charter March 2015 UAFP 1.0 FTF Completion/Submission September 2015 UAFP 1.0 OMG will Issue Specification ~December 2015 Maintenance Revision UAFP 1.1 RTF Charter September 2015 UAFP 1.1 RTF Response: Completed & Submitted to OMG September 2016 UAFP 1.1 OMG will Issue Specification ~December 2016

UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 10 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile The Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN) Reference Document 3195 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMN ARCHITECTURE IN 2010 LESSONS LEARNED Torsten Graeber, NATO C3 Agency June 2011 The Hague UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 11 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile What is the AMN? The Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN) is the primary Coalition Command, Control Communication and Computers Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network in Afghanistan for all ISAF forces and operations. It is a federation of networks with the AMN Core provided by NATO and national network

extensions. Planning for the AMN is supported by a multi-national, collaborative effort to develop and maintain the enterprise architecture for the AMN. This document is a working paper that may not be cited as representing formally approved NC3A opinions, conclusions or recommendations. UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 12 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile AMN Issues (1) In 2010, there was no proper governance structure for the AMN as a whole. Likewise there was no governance for the development of the AMN architecture. The development of the architecture was primarily coordinated through the AWG consisting of the architects of the nations participating in the AMN. This AWG usually received ad hoc tasking from different stakeholders involved in the development of the AMN without clear leadership defining the goals and deliverables upfront. As a direct result of this missing governance several issues arose that had a negative impact on the architecture development work. UAFP Group Briefing

June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 13 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile AMN Issues (2) These issues included: Different expectations on content and usage of the architecture leading to ever changing requirements and deliverables No enforcement of the architecture during implementation Usage of different architecture frameworks Usage of different architecture tools. No interchange between the tools In late 2010, a governance structure for the AMN was endorsed by Chief Of Staff SHAPE and the AWG was included in this governance structure. As a direct consequence, the situation regarding clearer expectations, deliverables and enforcement of architecture has been improved in 2011. However, as the architects are sponsored by their respective nations they have to implement national policies and requirements, so that improvements regarding the usage of a single framework and tool are not to be expected. UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 14

Elements of Quality Architecture Policy, Direction, Guidance Single Architecture Framework Architecture Exchange Architecture Tools Trained/Certified Architects Enabling efficient and effective acquisition of hardware, software and services used by DoD in missions deliverables. Unified Architecture Framework Unclassified Unified Architecture Framework NATO Architecture CaT Introduction Mr. Walt Okon Senior Architect Engineer DoD Chief Information Officer Office

Architecture and Interoperability Directorate [email protected] 10-11 September 2012 Office of the Chief Information Officer Unclassified Unclassified 4.1 ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS 4.1.2 Observations [Need for a Unified Architecture Framework] Differences in DoDAF, MODAF, and NAF make it difficult to match the meta-model one to one. some of the concepts in the frameworks have the same name but different definitions, i.e. different semantics. Difficult to cross-walk the concepts between the different frameworks leads to miscommunication between architects using different frameworks. Unclassified 17 Unclassified Unified Architecture Framework Unified Architecture Framework Strategic Direction Move towards a Single Architecture Framework to achieve

Interoperability Development of the AMN architecture in 2010 Development of Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 Meeting at Object Management Group (OMG) March 2012 Ideas Meeting in June 2012 Plan for NATO CAT workshop 10/11 Sept 2012 Launchpad for Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) Unclassified 18 Unclassified Architecture Framework Convergence Vision Fit-for-purpose Data-centric architecture Improved models of systems, services, capabilities, rules, measures DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) based on IDEAS

Net-centricity and SoA SvcV views JCIDS & NR-KPP Applicability beyond C4ISR Use-based Integrated Architecture Urgent CRs 52 1 XSD IDEAS Foundation v1.0 fixes Urgent CRs TECHEDITS DM2 OWL 26 AV/OV/SV/TV views Linked to I&S policies CADM 2.0 DoDAF

v1.0 Joint Interoperability DoDAF v1.5 DoDAF v2.0 C4ISR F/W v1.0 19 June 2012 1997 2003 2007 DoDAF v2.01 v2.02 MODEM DM2 Harmonization (IDEAS Domain Level) NATO NAF

UDAF DoDAF/DNDAF DoDAF v2.04 v2.03 Standardization, e.g., ISO OMG OASIS UAF v2.05 UAF Framework Objective: Achieve a single integrated Architecture Framework for interoperability. Achieve a US, Canada, and United Kingdom single Framework with a common Data Meta Model Achieve alignment with the US Government Common Approach to Enterprise Architecture C4ISR F/W v2.0

1995 Federal Common Approach DNDAF Security Views 2009 Unclassified 2010 2012 2013 2014 2016 19 Vertical and Horizontal Complementary Emerging Standards CA-FEA: The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architectures UML: The Unified Modelling Language. SysML: The Systems Modelling Language

SoaML: The Service Oriented Architecture language NIEM: UML Profile for NIEM - provides a common method for defining XML schema conforming to the NIEM Specifications IEPV: Information Exchange Policy Vocabulary provides a method for defining the business rule for the aggregation, transformation, tagging and filtering data and information to a specified message format. ( supports STANAG 5525, replaces SOPES modeling paradigm) Etc. Elemental Links 2012 Object Management Group - Page: 20 Unclassified Common Approach National IT Architecture Movement in the United States across all Government Departments, Agencies, and Organizations Federal, State, and Local Industry Academia (Colleges and Universities) Unclassified 21 Unclassified

Common Approach Increasing Shared Approaches To Information Technology Services Implements Governance Process Provides Authority to the Common Approach to a Unified Architecture Framework Provides Standards Methods and Tools Design and Implement Shared Services Design architectures that facilitates interoperability and informationsharing Unclassified 22 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Why Whyand andWhen: When:Historical HistoricalDevelopment Developmentof ofAFs. AFs. DNDAF

v1.8 NAF v3.1 NAF v1.0 MODAF Meta-Model (M3) expressed using UML Notation 2005 C4ISR Architecture Framework v2.0 1997 C4ISR Architecture Framework v1.0 MODAF v1.0 2005

MODAF v1.1 MODAF v1.2 2008 2007 DoDAF v1.0 2003 2008 2007 DoDAF V2.0 2007 Scope of UAFP 1.0 : Scope of UPDM 2.0 ETC June 2011 1996 UAFP Group Briefing

2015 2009 DoDAF v1.5 Scope of UPDM 1.0 Approved Sept 2008 UAF/ MODEM v1.0 June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 23 UAFP Unified Architecture Framework Profile Discussion Questions? UAFP Group Briefing June 2013 Hause, Bleakley, Van Zandt 24

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Bible Basics  Biblia  Inspired Word of God  Different

    Bible Basics Biblia Inspired Word of God Different

    Bible Basics Biblia Inspired Word of God Different kinds of truth The Inerrancy of the Bible Inerrancy Strict inerrancy Limited inerrancy Canon Septuagint Testament ...
  • Rajshi Industries: Introduction

    Rajshi Industries: Introduction

    Arial Calibri Wingdings Times New Roman Arial Black Brush Script MT Castellar 1_Default Design 2_Capsules 2_Default Design 3_Capsules Rajshi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Rajshi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. CAD / CAM Dept. VISION Casting Plant CNC Machining Shop Slide 7...
  • December 25, 2016 We love you. Guy and

    December 25, 2016 We love you. Guy and

    appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a...
  • Topic 1: Measurement and uncertainties 1.2  Uncertainties and

    Topic 1: Measurement and uncertainties 1.2 Uncertainties and

    • Aim 9: the process of using uncertainties in classical physics can be compared to the view of uncertainties in modern (and particularly quantum) physics . Uncertainty and errors. Accuracy . is the closeness of agreement between a measured value...
  • Faults & Earthquakes These can be either constructive

    Faults & Earthquakes These can be either constructive

    Most volcanoes and earthquakes occur in the ring of fire, an area circling the Pacific Ocean. New Madrid fault is an area of active earthquake activity in the American mid-west. A Tsunami is a giant tidal wave often caused by...
  • Simple Machines - Lopez Middle School

    Simple Machines - Lopez Middle School

    Simple Machines Simple Machines device that makes work easier changes the size or direction of the force Does Not decrease the overall amount of work to be done Simple Machines(cont.) multiplies effort force come in many shapes and forms; but...
  • Big Data Myth Busters Benefiting from Big Data

    Big Data Myth Busters Benefiting from Big Data

    Input into Taylor-Russell tables expected increase in % of successful performers. Input into utility formulae (e.g., BCG) expected benefit in dollars. Debunking Myth #2 "The results from these methods are too complex to convey to decision makers." Like traditional models,...
  • Loanable Funds - Alvin Independent School District

    Loanable Funds - Alvin Independent School District

    Loanable Funds Market. The market where savers and borrowers exchange funds (Q. LF) at the real rate of interest (r%).The demand for loanable funds, or borrowing comes from households, firms, government and the foreign sector. The demand for loanable funds...