1. UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF C4I TF Boston June, 2005

2. 2 Problem Statement DODAF v1.0 Volume II provides guidance on using UML –Used extensively to represent DODAF architecture products across industry –Not sufficiently precise resulting in multiple interpretations (no one-to-one mapping between UML diagrams and DODAF products) –Based on UML 1.x which has been superseded by UML 2 DODAF UML guidance is inadequate to facilitate communications, architecture product reuse and maintainability, and tool interoperability

3. 3 Solution Statement DODAF V 1.0 exposed a need for architecture-based model-driven systems engineering SysML is a UML profile for model-driven systems engineering Initial analysis indicates good coverage of all DODAF/MODAF views with SysML* Utilize UML’s systems engineering extensions wherever SysML profile is applicable Develop a UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF that provides an industry standard UML representation of DODAF/MODAF architecture views * see Bailey et al in references section

4. 4 UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF RFP Scope Use DODAF v1.0 as a baseline Incorporate MODAF’s additional views (Acquisition and Strategic Capability) Support for modeling system-of-systems architectures –Systems that include hardware, software, data, personnel, procedures, and facilities (DOTMLPF & MOD Lines of Development ) –Service oriented architectures [Editor’s Note: The specific requirements for DODAF v2.0 will be incorporated as they become available]

5. 5 RFP Draft Feedback MODAF’s Strategic Capability Views may: –Expand scope beyond what might be sensible in one RFP, –Overlap with the Business Motivation Metamodel work in BEIDTF, –Be beyond what UML was ever intended or suitable for. RFP is US-UK focused. Support of the NATO AF should be added to the mandatory requirements. Concerns about timetable: MODAF to be published in July, RFP to be approved by Nov. DODAF v2.0 requirements are not being folded in until they become available. Support for service-oriented views: added as an optional requirement Relationship between this meta-model and CADM: Domain metamodel is a higher level of abstraction than the CADM which is a physical data model UML profile should not force a specific development methodology (i.e., structured vs. OO)

6. 6 UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF RFP Requirements Summary Develop RFP that specifies the requirements for a UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF –Meta-model extension (abstract syntax and constraints) –Notation (concrete syntax) –Views and Viewpoints –Architecture products –Element taxonomy –Data interchange mechanism Optional requirements to support: –Extensibility to other architecture frameworks –Representation of architectural patterns and types such as service oriented architectures –diagram interchange mechanism (leverage other OMG TF)

7. 7 UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF Roadmap April 2006 Sept 2005 SysML/AP233 Alignment Feb 2005 DODAF V 1.0 (2004) SysML V 1.0 Adopted OMG Kickoff (Feb 05) RFP (Sept 05) UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF SysML V 0.9 MODAF V 1.0 (Sept 05) Nov 2006 1 st Submission Feb 2006

8. 8 Long Term Solution Develop standard for the specification of general architecture frameworks –Leverage IEEE 1471 –Make applicable to a broad range of architecture frameworks Military and commercial e.g., Zachman Framework –Utilize experience from UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF standardization to reduce risks –Issue RFI followed by RFP through OMG’s ADTF

9. 9 References 1.AP233 part of the STEP Standard (ISO10303), http://ap233.eurostep.comhttp://ap233.eurostep.com 2.Bailey, I., Dandashi, F., Ang, H., Hardy, D. “Using Systems Engineering Standards in an Architecture Framework,” INCOSE Insight Magazine, Vol. 7, Issue 2, July 2004 3.CADM, All-DoD Core Architecture Data Model (CADM), https://pais.osd.mil/EnterpriseArchitectures 4.Cantor, Murray, “Rational Unified Process for Systems Engineering (RUP SE) -- Requirements Analysis and Design,” Rational Edge, October 2003 5.DeMarco, T., Structured Analysis and Systems Specification, Prentice Hall, 1978. (SADT) 6.EIA 632, “Processes for Engineering a System,” Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard, January, 1999 7.FIPS183, “Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0),” NIST, Dec. 1993, www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/idef02.docwww.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/idef02.doc 8.Friedenthal, S., Kobryn, C. "Extending UML to Support a Systems Modeling Language," Proceedings of the INCOSE 2004 International Symposium, June, 2004 9.IEEE 1220, “Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process,” IEEE, 1998 10.IEEE 1471, “Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems,” IEEE, 2000 11.IEEE 1516.3 (HLA), "Recommended Practice for High Level Architecture (HLA) Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP), IEEE, Sept. 2000 12.ISO 10303-11:2004, “Industrial Automation Systems And Integration -- Product Data Representation And Exchange,” Ed. 2, TC 184/SC 4 13.ISO/IEC 10746, “Information Technology—Open Distributed Processing -- Reference Model,” ISO/IEC,1998 14.ISO/IEC 15288, “Systems Engineering—System Life Cycle Processes,” ISO/IEC, October 2002 15.ISO 15704, “Industrial Automation Systems—Requirements for Enterprise-Reference Architectures and Methodologies,” ISO, 2000 16.Lykins, Friedenthal, Meilich, “Adapting UML for an Object Oriented Systems Engineering Method (OOSEM) “, 15 January 2001, http://www.incose.org/chesapek/meetings/Adapting_UML_for_an_OOSEM.doc http://www.incose.org/chesapek/meetings/Adapting_UML_for_an_OOSEM.doc 17.FIPS183, “Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0),” NIST, Dec. 1993, www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/idef02.docwww.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/idef02.doc 18.OMG Document ad/05-01-03, “Systems Modeling Language Draft Specification V0.9,” OMG, January, 2005 19.OMG Document ptc/03-10-04 Meta Object Facility (MOF) V 2.0 Core, OMG, Oct. 2003 20.OMG Document -- formal/03-05-02, XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), v2.0), OMG, May 2003 21.OpenGroup, “Introduction to the Architecture Development Method (ADM),” http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8- doc/arch/p2/p2_intro.htmhttp://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8- doc/arch/p2/p2_intro.htm 22.OpenGroup, “The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF),” www.opengroup.orgwww.opengroup.org 23.SEI, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) V 1.02b, Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University, December 2001. 24.Zachman, John, “The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture,” http://www.zifa.com/

10. 10 Acronyms ADM: The OpenGroup Architecture Driven Methodology ADTF: Analysis and Design Task Force AP 233: Application Protocol #233 C4I DTF: C4I Domain Task Force CADM: Core Architecture Data Model CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration (Carnegie Mellon’s SEI) DODAF: DoD Architecture Framework EIA 632: Electronics Industries Alliance Standard: Processes for Engineering a System HLA: High-Level Architecture IEEE: Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers INCOSE: International Council On Systems Engineering ISO/IEC 15288: Systems Engineering— System Life Cycle Processes LOI: Letter of Intent MDSD WG: Model Driven System Design Working Group MODAF: Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework MOF: Meta-Object Facility (MOF), version 1.4 OMG: Object Management Group OOSEM: Object-Oriented Systems Engineering Method RFI: Request for Information RFP: Request for Proposal RUP SE: Rational Unified Process for Systems Engineering SADT: Structured Analysis and Design Technique SEI: Software Engineering Institute SoS: System Of Systems SysML: Systems Modeling Language TOGAF: The Open Group Architectural Framework’s UML: Unified Modeling Language XMI: XML Metadata Interchange