1. What is the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2)?
DoDAF Vocabulary
Discovery Categories
Data Exchange Specification
DoD EA COI Understandability
Mathematical rigor for integration and analysis
Systems Viewpoint
Articulate the legacy systems or independent systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for, or supporting, DoD functions
All Viewpoint
Overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all models
Capability Viewpoint
Articulate the capability requirement, delivery timing, and deployed capability
Services Viewpoint
Articulate the performers, activities, services, and their exchanges providing for, or supporting, DoD functions
Operational Viewpoint
Articulate operational scenarios, processes, activities & requirements
Standards Viewpoint
Articulate applicable Operational, Business, Technical, and Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts
Project Viewpoint
Describes the relationships between operational and capability requirements and the various projects being implemented; Details dependencies between capability management and the Defense Acquisition System process.
Data and Information Viewpoint
Articulate the data relationships and alignment structures in the architecture content
Conceptual Data Model (CDM)
Concepts and concept relationships for core process stakeholders
Physical Exchange Schema (PES)
XML encoding of LDM
Logical Data Model (LDM)
Reified and Formalized relationships
For Architects
For:
Integrators
Analysts
Developers
Formal Ontology Foundation
Extensionalist à 1st Order à 4 Dimensionalist
Type Theoretic à 4D Mereotopologic
DM2 CDM
Sample DM2 LDM Diagram
EA / ITA Tools EA
DBMS’
DM2 PES
XSD
neutral
implementation
M&S
Tools
Authoritative Data
Sources
Analysis Software
Federal, Coalition, and other EA exchanges
XMI / MOF Conversant (e.g., UPDM / SysML)
Reporting Tools and Formats
4D Mereology
Set Theory
Naming
Pedigree
Ontic Foundation
EA Domain Concepts
Common
Patterns
PES Neutral Format for EA Data Sharing Over Diverse Sources
IDEAS Foundation Top-Level

2. Benefits of the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2)
A spectrum of information sharing
Human-interpretable only
Depends on near-universal mathematics and science that all learn very similarly
Human-interpretable but with a predictable organized arrangement
More structure than structured text
Named records (or tables or classes) that are some sort of container for named fields (or attributes or columns). 
Associations and relationships, containers can point to information in other containers
Because of the labeling, you can tie the information together and query them.  A SQL query is just fundamentally a selection of the information. 
Referential integrity, data validation, cardinality rules, etc.
Applicable mathematics:
Set or type theory
Mereology
Mereotopology
4 dimensionalism
Predicate calculus
Logics: modal, Kripke, …
Rules, operators:
Commutative, reflexive, transitive, …
Member-of, subset-of, part-of, …
Create architectural descriptions
Example Benefits of DM2:
Submit for core process event
For example:
Queries for disconnects, inconsistencies, …
Specialized tools (e.g., cost / risk / performance / sustainment models, interoperability assessment)
Process simulators (e.g., comms flow, workflow, Petri nets, state machines)
Campaign, mission, engagement, etc. simulators
All have high-sensitivity to mis-interpreted, erroneous, incomplete, incompatible, … data
Re-use of common patterns
Working Group reconciliation and analysis tool
Information pedigree model– reused existing patterns!
Design reification / requirements traceability – reused existing patterns!
Services description – reused existing patterns!
Semantic precision for interoperability and data exchange
Mathematical precision for automated algorithmic analysis
For example:
Capability solution proposal
Acquisition milestone review
Interoperability and supportability assessment checkpoints
Budget cycle (PPBE, IRB, CPM)
Ops Plan (contingency update cycle, actual)
Get and integrate relevant datasets
Analyze and assess
The notional life-cycle of architectural description datasets
Present Results for core process decisions

3. How to Implement the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2)
Join the DM2 Working Group!
DM2 Description Documents
DM2 WG open to all
Collaboration Site
Business rules, e.g.,
Aggregation and subtype rules
Coordination with many other groups, e.g.,
Controlled vocabulary
Data models
Vendors and implementers
Software and systems organizations
Current baseline CDM, LDM, and PES files and documentation
Working copy
IDEAS model and profile
Folders with:
WG information
References and research
Tutorials and briefings
Next meeting info
Links to IDEAS & BORO 1.
Outreach and Tutorial Onsites -- 2. 3.
Other ontology resources: IDEAS Group, BORO, Matthew West, ModelFutures, Barry Smith / NCOR 4. 5. 6.
IDEAS Partial Bibliography
Berger, Peter L, and Thomas Luckmann; The Social Construction of Reality; Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York; 1966.
Casati, Roberto, and Achille C Varzi; Holes and other Superficialities; The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1995.
Casati, Roberto, and Achille C Varzi; Parts and Places: The Structure of Spatial Representation; The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1999.
Clark, Bowman L; “Individuals and Points”; Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 26; 1985.
Coquand, Thierry; “Type Theory”; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2006.
Davenport, Thomas H, and Laurence Prusak; Working Knowlege: How Organizations Manage What They Know; Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts; 1998.
Gilbert, Margaret; On Social Facts; Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1992.
Grenon, Pierre, and Barry Smith; “The Cornucopia of Formal-Ontological Relations”; Dialectica. Vol. 58; 2004
Grenon, Pierre, and Barry Smith; “Snap and Span: Toward Dynamic Spatial Ontology”; Spatial Cognition and Computation; Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates, Inc, Leipzig, Germany.
Hacking, Ian; Historical Ontology; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 2002.
Hawley, Katherine; How Things Persist; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001
Janssen, Terry, et al; A Multi- INT Sematic Reasoning Framework for Intelligence Analysis Support
Kay, Paul; “Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast”; Language; Vols. 47, number4; University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1971.
Kempson, Ruth M; Semantic Theory; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1977.
Levinson, Stephen C; Pragmatics; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1984.
Lyons, John; Language, Meaning, & Context; Fontana Paperbacks, Great Britain; 1981.
Nerlich, Graham; The Shape of Space; Second ed; Cambridge University Press,New York, NY; 1994.
Partee, Barbara H, Alice Ter Meulen, and Robert E Wall; Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Vol. 30; Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; 1990.
Partridge, Chris; Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use; The Boro Centre; 2005.
Potter, Michael; Set Theory and its Philosophy; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2004.
Pulman, S G; Word Meaning and Belief; Ed. James R Hurford and John A Hawkins; Croom Helm Linguistics Series; Billing & Sons Limited, Great Britain; 1983.
Sider, Theodore; Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001.
Simons, Peter; Parts: A Study in Ontology; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1987.
Smith, Barry; “Against Fantology”; Experience and Analysis; By M E Reicher and J C Marek; 2005.
Smith, Barry; “The Basic Tools of Formal Ontology”; Formal Ontology in Information Systems; IOS Press, Amsterdam; Frontiers in Artifitial Intellegence and Applications; 1998
Smith, Barry; “Mereotopology: A Theory of Parts and Boundaries”; Data and Knowledge Engineering; Department of Philosophy, Buffalo, New York; 1996.
Smith, Barry, and David M Mark; “Do Mountains Exist? Toward an Ontology of Landforms.” Enviorment & Planning B (Planning and Design); National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Buffalo, New York; 2009.
Stein, Lynn Andrea; “Imagination and Situated Cognition”; Thinking about Android Epistemology; Ed. Kenneth M Ford, Clark Glymour, and Partick J Hayes; AAAI Press, Menlo Park; 2006.

4. DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) in a Nutshell
DM2 Purpose and Role:
DoDAF Vocabulary
Discovery Categories
Data Exchange Specification
DoD EA COI Understandability
Mathematical rigor for integration and analysis
DoDAF 2.0 Conformance: DM2 PES -- the Neutral Format for EA Data Sharing Over Diverse Sources
Conceptual Data Model (CDM)
Concepts and concept relationships for core process stakeholders
Physical Exchange Schema (PES)
XML encoding of LDM
Logical Data Model (LDM)
Reified and Formalized relationships
For Architects
For:
Integrators
Analysts
Developers
Formal Ontology Foundation
Extensionalist à 1st Order à 4 Dimensionalist
Type Theoretic à 4D Mereotopologic
EA / ITA Tools EA
DBMS’
DM2 PES
XSD
neutral
implementation
M&S
Tools
Authoritative Data
Sources
Analysis Software
Federal, Coalition, and other EA exchanges
XMI / MOF Conversant (e.g., UPDM / SysML)
Reporting Tools and Formats
4D Mereology
Set Theory
Naming
Pedigree
Ontic Foundation
EA Domain Concepts
Common
Patterns
DM2 CDM
Example of IDEAS Foundation Benefits:
Re-use of common patterns
Working Group reconciliation and analysis tool
Information pedigree model– reused existing patterns!
Design reification / requirements traceability – reused existing patterns!
Services description – reused existing patterns!
Semantic precision for interoperability and data exchange
Mathematical precision for automated algorithmic analysis
DM2 Resources:
DM2 Working Group – open to all! DM2 Collaboration Site – DM2 Description Documents and Briefings Outreach and Tutorial Onsites – IDEAS Partial Bibliography Other ontology resources: IDEAS Group, BORO, Matthew West, ModelFutures, Barry Smith / NCOR