DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team 1 1

Agenda DoDAF-DM2 WG history DoDAF-DM2 WG Objectives Current DoDAF-DM2 WG Participants DoDAF-DM2 WG Challenges DoDAF-DM2 WG Way Ahead

Lay of DoDAF Land Model (view) specifications DM2 Operational Capabilities Services Systems Data and Information Standards Projects DM2 Conceptual Data Model – very simple Logical Data Model Because of IDEAS there are only ~250 total data elements compared to the less-expressive CADM that had ~16,000! Physical Exchange Specification is Automatically generated from the LDM (an IDEAS plug-in, already paid-for) Slightly-dumbed-down LDM in XML so if you know the LDM, PES is simple PES tags and definitions are identical to DM2 LDM No new structures are introduced other than XML-isms The 52 DoDAF models and the DM2 are related via a matrix* * 52 DoDAF models X 250 DM2 data elements, referred to as the “monster matrix” because it has ~ 13,000 decision cells

Views

Views

Views

Views

Views

Conceptual Level of DM2 is Simple anything can have Measures Condition Guidance is-performable-under Rule Activity Capability Standard Agreement constrains requires-ability-to-perform Backup slide has term definitions has consumes-and-produces is-performed-by is-realized-by Project achieves-desired-effect (a state of a resource) is-the-goal-of Resource describes-something Information Not shown but implied by the IDEAS Foundation: Everything is 4-D and so has temporal parts, i.e., states Everything has parts Everything has subtypes Activity: Work, not specific to a single organization, weapon system or individual that transforms inputs (Resources) into outputs (Resources) or changes their state. Resource: Data, Information, Performers, Materiel, or Personnel Types that are produced or consumed. Materiel: Equipment, apparatus or supplies that are of interest, without distinction as to its application for administrative or combat purposes. Information: The state of a something of interest that is materialized -- in any medium or form -- and communicated or received. Data: Representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by humans or by automatic means. Examples could be whole models, packages, entities, attributes, classes, domain values, enumeration values, records, tables, rows, columns, and fields. Performer: Any entity - human, automated, or any aggregation of human and/or automated - that performs an activity and provides a capability. Organization: A specific real-world assemblage of people and other resources organized for an on-going purpose. System: A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. Person Role: A category of persons defined by the role or roles they share that are relevant to an architecture. Service: A mechanism to enable access to a set of one or more capabilities, where the access is provided using a prescribed interface and is exercised consistent with constraints and policies as specified by the service description. The mechanism is a Performer. The capabilities accessed are Resources -- Information, Data, Materiel, Performers, and Geo-political Extents. Capability: The ability to achieve a Desired Effect under specified (performance) standards and conditions through combinations of ways and means (activities and resources) to perform a set of activities. Condition: The state of an environment or situation in which a Performer performs. Desired Effect: A desired state of a Resource. Measure: The magnitude of some attribute of an individual. Location: A point or extent in space that may be referred to physically or logically. Guidance: An authoritative statement intended to lead or steer the execution of actions. Rule: A principle or condition that governs behavior; a prescribed guide for conduct or action. Agreement: A consent among parties regarding the terms and conditions of activities that said parties participate in. Standard: A formal agreement documenting generally accepted specifications or criteria for products, processes, procedures, policies, systems, and/or personnel. Project: A temporary endeavor undertaken to create Resources or Desired Effects. Geopolitical Extent A geospatial extent whose boundaries are by declaration or agreement by political parties. Materiel Performer Data System Organization is-at Location GeoPolitical Service PersonRole is-part-of

DoDAF 2 Conceptual Data Model Terms Activity: Work, not specific to a single organization, weapon system or individual that transforms inputs (Resources) into outputs (Resources) or changes their state. Resource: Data, Information, Performers, Materiel, or Personnel Types that are produced or consumed. Materiel: Equipment, apparatus or supplies that are of interest, without distinction as to its application for administrative or combat purposes. Information: The state of a something of interest that is materialized -- in any medium or form -- and communicated or received. Data: Representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by humans or by automatic means. Examples could be whole models, packages, entities, attributes, classes, domain values, enumeration values, records, tables, rows, columns, and fields. Performer: Any entity - human, automated, or any aggregation of human and/or automated - that performs an activity and provides a capability. Organization: A specific real-world assemblage of people and other resources organized for an on-going purpose. System: A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. Person Role: A category of persons defined by the role or roles they share that are relevant to an architecture. Service: A mechanism to enable access to a set of one or more capabilities, where the access is provided using a prescribed interface and is exercised consistent with constraints and policies as specified by the service description. The mechanism is a Performer. The capabilities accessed are Resources -- Information, Data, Materiel, Performers, and Geo-political Extents. Capability: The ability to achieve a Desired Effect under specified (performance) standards and conditions through combinations of ways and means (activities and resources) to perform a set of activities. Condition: The state of an environment or situation in which a Performer performs. Desired Effect: A desired state of a Resource. Measure: The magnitude of some attribute of an individual. Location: A point or extent in space that may be referred to physically or logically. Guidance: An authoritative statement intended to lead or steer the execution of actions. Rule: A principle or condition that governs behavior; a prescribed guide for conduct or action. Agreement: A consent among parties regarding the terms and conditions of activities that said parties participate in. Standard: A formal agreement documenting generally accepted specifications or criteria for products, processes, procedures, policies, systems, and/or personnel. Project: A temporary endeavor undertaken to create Resources or Desired Effects. Geopolitical Extent A geospatial extent whose boundaries are by declaration or agreement by political parties.

PES Structure Planned for future interoperability with IDEAS Packaging, e.g., overall classification marking Extra goodies for Dublin Core (optional) Screen-scrape of the actual PES XSD Architecture data – tag names and definitions are exactly from DM2 LDM Where you say what views the data corresponds to One PES file can have multiple views A single piece of data can be in multiple views A recipient of the XML file should validated it against PES XSD which automatically encodes the “monster matrix”. XML stuff -- unimportant This could be made optional

DoDAF-DM2 WG history DoDAF 2.0 development in 2008-2009 was done via 3 technical working groups: Presentation Methods Data Data TWG methodology during DoDAF 2.0 development Top-down from DoD’s six core processes and their information requirements collected as part of the requirements workshops Bottoms-up from ~ two dozen existing data models Business rules enabled great success – DM2 has only ~ 250 pieces compared to predecessor CADM’s ~ 16,000 DoDAF 2.0 publication in May 2009 Only Data TWG established a significant membership and meeting tempo and so it was a resource of opportunity to assume DoDAF configuration management recommendations

Top-Down / Bottom-Up Development DoDAF 2.0: Conceptual Data Model (Vol I) Logical Data Model (Vol II) Physical Exchange Model (Vol III) Existing / Emerging Schema, Models, and Databases Data Model Development COI1 COIn COI Coordination PPBE Process Information Requirements JCIDS Process Information Requirements Ops Planning Process Information Requirements SE Process Information Requirements DoD Core Process Information Requirements Collection UCORE DAS Process Information Requirements CPM Process Information Requirements

Conceptual Data Model Process 12/3 Strawman – list of important or recurring “core” words/terms/concepts with source definition(s) 3/3 CDM version 0.1 Concepts (defined) Relationships (some typing, e.g., super/sub, cardinality) 1/3 Partial Draft – proposed definitions, some harmonization (e.g., via super/subtyping, determining aliases) 2/3 Interim Draft – Initial relationships (e.g., "performs", "part-of", ...) 1. Overviews of Models 2. Collect the terms 3. Make a pass on the “Core” Terms 4. Gather authoritative definitions for “Core” terms 1 = Core, critical to process or very common in architectures 2 = Derived or less common 3 = TBD 4 = TBD 5 = TBD 5 4 3 2 1 6. Proposed definitions (+rationale, examples, and aliases) 7. Relationships 8. Relationship Types 5. Group related terms This slide is an update to what has been presented before. Recall, We gathered overviews of many relevant models, listed on the next slide We pulled the key terms into a spreadsheet, keeping track of the source We noticed certain repeating ones, and ones that seemed “core” We ranked their core-ness / priority / key-ness. We ended up with 50-60 key / core terms, which seemed about manageable We gathered “authoritative” definitions for those 50-60, from the models plus the definition sources shown on the next slide We noticed some terms referred to related concepts, perhaps, so we grouped them We’ve been coming up with a proposed definition, following some group guidance. We also record the rationale and are working on examples for each definition. We’ve started working on relationships between the concepts the terms refer to We are starting to think about formalizing a few key relationships, e.g., super/subtype, whole-part, produce/consume (input/output), performs/supports/…, This work is all done by various members of the SWG. Not shown here, is that SWG members researched many thorny semantic issues and reported back to the WG their findings.

Sources Models CADM 1.5 IDEAS UPDM BMM Hay/Zachman ASM CRIS Conceptual CADM in DoDAF 1.0 / prototype CADM 2.0 M3 NAF Meta Model DoI Meta Model JC3IEDM GML UCORE 1.1 GEIA 927 AP233 SUMO and ISO 15926 (via IDEAS) FEA Reference Models JFCOM JACAE Definitions IEEE ISO W3C OMG EIA DODD & DODI JCS Pubs, especially CJCSI's Models in the Source_Candidates_071115.ppt DoDAF Other frameworks: Zachman, MODAF, TOGAF, NAF, ... FEA BMM Worknet Wikipedia English dictionaries DoDAF Glossary On the left are the model sources we considered to date; on the right, additional sources for definitions. Note that as a result of the Ops Planning workshop at JFCOM last week, we now can add JACAE as source. That metadata is being parsed into the spreadsheet this week. Note also, that we considered sereral non-AF sources, e.g., JCS Pub 1-02, the DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, and English dictionaries.

Definition Phase Example 1 Category Capability Technical Term Proposed Definition Capability: (n) 1. The ability to execute a specified course of action. (JP 1-02) 2. The ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks. (JCIDS) Potentially Related Terms or Aliases   Source/Current Definition (source) definition (JCIDS): The ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks. (DoDAF/CADM): An ability to achieve an objective. (DDDS Counter (333/1)(A)) (JC3IEDM): The potential ability to do work, perform a function or mission, achieve an objective, or provide a service. (NAF): The ability of one or more resources to deliver a specified type of effect or a specified course of action. (GEN TERM) (NAF): A high level specification of the enterprise's ability. (MM) (JCS 1-02): The ability to execute a specified course of action. (A capability may or may not be accompanied by an intention.) (Webster's): 1. The quality of being capable; ability. 2. A talent or ability that has potential for development or use. 3. The capacity to be used, treated, or developed for a specific purpose. Examples "The soldier shall be able to load and fire his individual weapon." (JP 1-02) "The soldier shall be able to load and fire his individual weapon from (positions) on a trainfire range, in (weather) to achieve a minimum score of "Marksman" on the Army Marksm Definition Rationale Authority: "The Secretary of Defense, by DOD Directive 5025.12, 23 August 1989, Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, has directed the use of JP 1-02 throughout the Department of Defense to ensure standardization of military and associated terminology.

WG Business Rules Essential for Broad Community Consensus

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF-DM2 WG Objectives

DoDAF-DM2 is under formal configuration control Architecture Standards Review Group CONOPS Roles, Responsibilities, and Processes ASRG -- FOGO / SES level Federated Architecture Council – 06 level DoDAF and DM2 CM Plan Configuration Identification Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, and Interactions CM Processes and Procedures CM Business Rules IN REVISION PER FAC DIRECTION

FAC is Small Formal Voting Body WG is Large & Collaborative NSA AF DoN Army Marine Corps DISA DISA DISA * Some C/S/A have multiple members FAC – Voting – 23* votes DoD CIO DoDAF-DM2 Configuration Status Accounting Report (CSAR) DoDAF-DM2 Baseline Status DoDAF-DM2 WG Activity Summaries COI Metrics and Progress Report JFCOM CR Technical Redirectoin • CR Prioritization Redirectoin • STRATCOM JCS J6 DCMO USD(I) P&R AT&L DNI CIO DoDAF-DM WG – Collaborative – Agreed-upon business rules enable analysis of different opinions Framework Groups OMG / INCOSE / NDIA MODAF / NAF / TOGAF FEA / FSAM Core Process Stakeholders CJCSI revs AT&L SoSE & Acq Reform Combatant Command architectures CPM Governance PA&E Framework & Ontology Groups OMG / INCOSE / NDIA IDEAS / NAF UCORE Enterprise Vocabularies 400+ members + ~12 new each week Meets bi-weekly Vendors EA/ITA Tool M&S Data Analysis Repository Data Integration Data Exchange Pilots Early Adopters Federation COI Coordination Groups DoD MDR WG DoD COI Forum To join, go to DoDAF 2.0 website

Bi-weekly WG Meetings Collaboration site Readaheads and notebooks References folders Discussion groups CR Submission Tools

Monthly Report to FAC Purposes: Action Item / Change Request Status Full visibility of WG activities and plans Opportunity for FAC re-direction Technical Prioritization Action Item / Change Request Status Configuration Status Accounting Report Summary of WG activities Change Request Summary Detailed status of all open Change Requests

DoDAF-DM2 Change Request Processing DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF CR Detailed Processing DRAFT TBD DRAFT

DM2 CR Detailed Processing DRAFT DRAFT

DoDAF-DM2 Version Process DRAFT

Current DoDAF-DM2 WG Participants Over 450 members Military, Government, Industry, Vendors, Academia, and professional organizations Operators, architects, tool developers, repository operators, and data analysts All FAC Components represented + IC Monthly participants and full member list reported to FAC in monthly CSAR Imminent tasker to Components to identify their WG representative(s) Multiple reps will be OK, e.g., Navy could choose SPAWAR, NAVSEA, NAVAIR, OPNAV, and ASN RDA

DoDAF-DM2 WG Challenges WG growth – from a dozen members to over 400, adding ~ 12 / week A new member orientation package to be automatically sent upon registration is being developed Separating material that needs to be controlled from that that doesn’t E.g., “History of the DoDAF” probably does not warrant formal review by Components and control by the FAC Conversely, the viewpoints/views and DM2 do Cleanup of legacy text and focus of viewpoints/views towards six core processes Wordsmithing is insufficient to resolve Tools that will help: FEAF, Core Process information analyses, and DM2 disambiguation power

DoDAF-DM2 WG Way Ahead ASRG & FAC Governance to be updated FAC Component reps formal tasker soon to be issued Version tempo to slow to annual or semi-annual Versions will go through review by Components by formal tasker Predicted future CR sources: Coordination with FEAF, JARM, and CUDEAF Core process initiatives, e.g., IT Acquisition Reform

DoD Architectures COI WG is being considered DRAFT Would cover, perhaps on a rotating basis: Architecture information sharing needs Architecture standards (i.e., DoDAF, DM2, others) Architecture tools (i.e., current vendor list, DARS, others) Architecture relevance in core processes and governance Architecture federation Architecture best practices DRAFT

Welcome! We look forward to your participation.