1. DoD EA COI Data Exchange Standard
I and SBSI do not have a vested interest in PES. Indeed, we developed it reluctantly. Our argument against XMI is based on our perception of the needs of the entire DoD architecture community – vendors, analysts, etc. and our concern about the negative impacts of over extending the XMI “standard”.
DoDAF Team
28 March 2011

2. Why this information was put together
OMG brief sounds like all industry and countries are adopting UPDM (and XMI?)
A little research indicates:
Percent of EA tool vendors DCIO is engaging: 15% are UPDM
Percent of XMI files in DoD architecture repositories: can’t find any
Percent of industry participating in DoD EA (as indicated by our mailing list and DoDAF Working Group) that are UPDM: 28/500 = 0.6%
OMG Outcome sounds like there are a lot of issues with PES
A little research indicates very few and mostly minor PES issues: 7% of open Change Requests.
88Solutions Adaptive Atego ASMG Axway Software BAE Systems DoD DND
Mega Mitre MOD NIST Northrop Grumman No Magic Inc Raytheon Rolls Royce Sparx Systems Selex SI Thales Unisys VisumPoint LLC
Everware-CBDI Generic General Dynamics IBM L3Comms Lockheed Martin Co
These aren’t all vendors. Some are Government agencies, some are consultants, some are defense industry.
Seems to be a disconnect

3. Topics Bird’s eye view of DoD EA Data Exchange Tools PES and DoDAF XMI
PES and UPDM XMI side-by-side
DoDAF CM and UPDM
Conclusion and Recommendations

4. Why exchange architecture data?
Across
For reuse
Might be convenient but often more trouble than it’s worth.
Downward
To bootstrap a refinement
Might be convenient.
Upward
To integrate and analyze
Otherwise it’s “wet” information fusion and ad-hoc analysis.
OPS
DAS SE
CPM
JCIDS
PPBE
Most DoD architecture “exchanges” today are pdf, ppt, doc, xls, html, SA encyclopedias, … -- not optimal, most participants would prefer otherwise

5. DoD EA COI Data Exchange
DoD EA Data Exchange Standard
Specialty:
JACAE
Specialty:
XMI
Federal:
OMB
Cross-Agency
Specialty:
TBD
Specialty:
CUDEAM
Allied
NATO
Coalition
Specialty:
BPMN
Specialty:
others
Specialty:
SA Encyclopedia
Specialty:
Archimate
Goal: minimize translation
Current givens:
DoDAF 2 is founded on DM2.
DM2 and CUDEAM are founded on IDEAS.
Consequent: the DoD EA data exchange standard should be as semantically close to DM2 and IDEAS as possible.

6. COTS Architecture Tools Vendor’s Day Mar-2011 + Follow-up (page 1 of 2)
Note that many non-UPDM tools are in upper Gartner quadrants
Also, we counted IBM SA as “UPDM” even though the primary data exchange between SA is the encyclopedia

7. COTS Architecture Tools Vendor’s Day Mar-2011 + Follow-up (page 2 of 2)
We have just started looking into relevant Govt-developed tools and ADS
We have not figured out a way to know which federated architectures are currently or planning to use which tools.

8. Lay of DoDAF Land Model specifications (AV-1  SV-10c) DM2
Intent was to specify using data dictionary terms
Unfortunately too much legacy committee language was preserved.
Estimate 75% of the terminology is undefined and inconsistent.
This ambiguous specification, accumulated since 1994, has led to the evolution of an EA community disconnected from the six core processes.
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!
But IDEAS is hard to learn – it’s mathematical
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
MITRE on the UPDM Team has been opposed to the idea of PES since it’s inception 3 years ago
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

9. PES Structure Planned 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

10. UPDM XMI
Very complicated – has taken years for a very limited set of like-functioned CASE tools to exchange
UML meta model carries a lot of early Object Oriented programming baggage and was designed by committee.
Consequently, it is badly suited to EA.
This was the biggest problem in using UML in M3.
XMI could have fundamental inconsistencies going to IDEAS and CUDEAM
Specific to UML tools, only 15% of the tools identified by the A&I team
We have not yet found any DoDAF XMI files in DARS or NARS or any DoD architecture repository.
Sweden estimated UML tools used for less than 1% of their EA’s.
Most architecture tools we have identified are not UML
There will probably never be a business case for them to implement XMI, esp. given how costly it has been for the tools in the CASE market.
There are other modeling language standards, e.g., BPMN, Archimate.
In many cases it is not even possible for the tools to conform to XMI because they are not software engineering tools.
I.e., OMG standards do not apply to 75% of architecture tools
An IEEE, INCOSE, or ISO standard would be broader

11. Comparison UPDM Search and Rescue OV-2 Example
NOTE: In this example, UPDM Team disagrees with early DM2 LDM decision that input and output happens only a result of an activity. This was done to fix to long-standing CADM problem. UPDM does not have a solution to this problem and so it is possible to create inconsistent data as in CADM.

12. PES and XMI for the same SAR OV-2 example
217 lines
Almost all are direct DM2 terms so anyone familiar with DoDAF and DM2 can read.
XMI
1,272 lines*
Almost all are UML terms so only someone familiar with UML could read.
* Much bigger even with the dangerous shortcut noted in the prior slide
See handouts. There are many PES samples on the DoDAF Journal site. GFE software on the WG site can generate PES easily.

13. DoDAF-DM2 CM UPDM Team Participation
UPDM Team has been a DoDAF-DM2 Working Group member for over two years.
Approximately 75 UPDM Team Change Requests have been submitted.
Most incorporated in v2.01 and v2.02
Only three on PES
Two the WG deferred to v2.04
One new one is on “monster matrix” (entered by Greg Schaefer)
UPDM Team knows our Greg Schafer has been their resource for PES and IDEAS Foundation questions and aid for over two years.
Not where the issues are
Small only because WG is reluctant to turn attention to the DoDAF model specifications.

14. DoDAF-DM2 CM CR Processing Involves Peer and Component Reviews
DoDAF Development Team does not control DoDAF or DM2.
400 member WG does peer review and work.
FAC/ASRG oversees and coordinates formal Component review and approval of new versions.

15. WG Business Rules Essential for Broad Community Consensus
Some people don’t like the rigor.
It is hard but the alternatives are worse.

16. DoDAF-DM2 Conformance (proposed to FAC as change for v2.03)
Levels
Conceptually conformant
Uses DoDAF terms and aliases (from DM2 CDM) to categorize its concepts
DoDAF views (AV-1 thru DIV-3) have correct information according to “monster matrix”). 
Logically conformant
Level 1 + adheres to terms and relationships from DM2 LDM and aliases
Physically conformant
Level 2 + expressed as DoDAF – DM2 PES that can be consumed by others
Semantically conformant
Level 3 + IDEAS semantics are correct
Confirmation method
Inspection
Test of XML files against standard schema validator
TBD, but would mostly likely be a test of the OWL/RDFS files
Greg Schaefer’s work proves that once you’re truly Level 2, Level 3 is easy
e.g., USAF RA was deemed Level 2
Vendors may wince at levels 3 and 4 because they are testable
Gives vendors and architects flexibility – FFP!

17. Recommendations Continue support all vendors
Define a Level 2.5 conformance: PES generation only.
Remind vendors Level 2 may be sufficient for some of their clients – FFP!
Encourage use of XMI, BPMN, Archimate, etc. for specialized exchange between appropriate tools.
DoDAF WG peer review the UPDM PES white paper when it becomes available.