1. Using Systems Engineering Data Standards with DoDAF
Ian Bailey (Eurostep)
Fatma Dandashi (Mitre Corp)
Dwayne Hardy (American Systems Corp)
David Price (Eurostep)

2. Disclaimers
Most of the following is from the co-authors of a white paper on this subject
Ian Bailey, Eurostep
Dwayne Hardy, American Systems Corp
Fatma Dandashi and Huei-Wan Ang, Mitre
and, based on a Dwayne Hardy quote,
“Hundreds of like minded individuals who are contributing to the vision of model-driven SE championed by the INCOSE MDSD WG”
including your own Sandy Friedenthal and others

3. Standards and SE data DoDAF - DoD Architecture Framework
Defines standardized views of systems information
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and Model-Driven System Design
Model-Driven SE Semantic Dictionary and Concept Model
Group work results in SysML/AP233 and alignment activity
SysML - from Object Management Group
Provide a standard modelling language and notation for systems engineers
AP233 Systems Engineering - ISO
Defines a neutral information model for complex systems engineering structures

4. Military Capabilities SoS and System Components
Why DoDAF?
Military Capabilities
expressed as
Concepts
Means
Behavior
Outcomes
SoS and System Components
expressed as
Components
Functions
Interfaces
Interactions
From a mission capability analysis perspective:
An aid in defining just what is a joint warfighting integrated architecture.
In addition to the benefits that we just discussed that are related to MOSA, modeling can also aid in the understanding of the behavior or interaction of systems collaborating on a mission capability.
Also applicable to S-of-S architectures, modeling also:
Permits different tools to be used by the various participants collaborating in the development of a mission capability
Permits alternate view of an architecture to be generated from the model data based on corresponding templates
Permits the usage of similar semantics to express architectures and related interfaces that exist at multiple (hierarchical) levels of details (i.e., joint, Service, platform, major system, subsystem, etc.)
DoD’s framework for defining mission capabilities and related system-of-systems architectures

5. systems interoperability
The DoDAF Views
Organizations, activities, information flow requirements
Operational
View (OV)
functional,
organizational
& interface
requirements
operational
requirements
capability &
supportability
information
system
designs to
support process
Technical
Standards
View (TV)
Systems
View (SV)
verification of
capability
against
standards
Prescribes technical standards
System structure, interfacing, data models, etc.
standards governing
systems interoperability

6. Systems Functionality Sequence and Timing Description (SV-10 a/b/c)
Summary of DoDAF Views
NODES
TIME A B C X Y Z
Systems Interface
Description (SV-1) T1
System Functionality Description (SV-4) T2 T3
Systems Functionality Sequence and Timing Description (SV-10 a/b/c)
Activity to System Function (SV-5)
Technical Architecture Profile (TV-1)
Physical Schema
SV-11
Operational
Systems
Technical
Standards Technology Forecast (TV-2)
Systems Evolution Description (SV-8)
System - System Matrix (SV-3)
Systems Communications Description (SV-2)
Systems Data Exchange Matrix (SV-6)
Systems Performance Parameters Matrix (SV-7)
Operational Concept Description (OV-1)
Systems Technology Forecast (SV-9)
Activity Model (OV-5)
Node Connectivity Description (OV-2)
NODES
TIME A B C
Organizational Relationships Chart (OV-4) T1 T2
• ..... T3
Operational Activity Sequence and Timing Description (OV-6 a/b/c)
Information Exchange Matrix (OV-3)
Logical Data Model (OV-7)
© Mitre Corp

7. Operational Activity Models (OV-5)
Node C
Node A
Node B
Activity 2
External Activity 1
Activity 1
Flow1
Flow 2
External Activity 2
Node D
Activity 3
Flow 3
Flow 4
Conducts
© Mitre Corp

8. Systems Interface Description (SV-1)
Node A
System 1
System 5
Node B
System 3
Node C
System 4
Node1
External Connection
Sys Func L
Sys Func M
Interface 1
Interface 4
Sys Func N
Sys Func H
Sys Func I
Sys Func J
Interface 5
Key Interface 3
© Mitre Corp

9. SysML System Modeling Language being standardized in OMG
“a general-purpose systems modeling language”
“supports the specification, analysis, design, verification and validation of a broad range of complex systems”
“systems may include hardware, software, data, personnel, procedures, and facilities”
Based on UML 2.0 with extensions (i.e. a UML Profile):
To define engineering semantics for existing UML concepts
To add requirements and parametric capabilities
AP233 and SysML based on the common Concept Model from INCOSE which defines their scope

10. SysML Diagram Types
© SysML Partners (Submission to OMG)

11. SysML – System Structure
Example © SysML Partners (Submission to OMG)

12. SysML – Requirements
Example © SysML Partners (Submission to OMG)

13. SysML – Continuous Behaviour
Example © SysML Partners (Submission to OMG)

14. SysML – State Machines
Example © SysML Partners (Submission to OMG)

15. AP233 Systems Engineering
AP233 is the Systems Engineering part of the new suite of ISO STEP Application Protocols built from modules
Shared constructs guarantee interoperability between disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Product Life Cycle Support and Configuration Controlled Design
Defines a formal, strict information model intended to prevent ambiguity when used for exchange between engineering systems
As part of STEP, AP233 links to standards with a vast scope

16. AP233 Scope requirements breakdowns PDM behaviour config control
static
structure
system
sub-system
product
structure
config
control
text-based
functional
breakdown
WBS
person &
org
property-based
security
behaviour
analysis
rules
state-based
verification &
validation
model presentation
function-based
risk
measurement
Legend
future work
completed

17. How Does AP233 Help?
Defines a reliable, automated way to move data between SE software tools
Eliminates the need for data re-entry
Provides a system-independent format for archiving data
Can be specified in a contract
Unlocks data stored in uncompetitive systems
Allows movement of data along the design process
e.g. requirements->systems->budgeting->design
Introduces functionality never before possible
All systems engineering data can be integrated together
Allows whole-system, whole-lifecycle design and analysis

18. Using Them Together One obvious scenario AP233
Use DoDAF to specify requirements for the different views of a system
Use SysML to model the system
Use AP233 to exchange data between SysML, legacy SE tools and other DoDAF views
SysML
DoDAF
OV2
SV4
• .....
AP233
OV7
TV2
• .....

19. How Well do They Fit ?
AP233 and SysML are being aligned by the development teams
Initial analysis indicates good coverage of the relevant DoDAF views with SysML
AP233 aligned with SysML scope but can also exchange the DoDAF Technical Views
AP233 is independent of modelling technique or representation and so can exchange data between non-SysML tools also

20. Proof-of-concept AP233 Demonstrator SysML Assembly/AP233 project
DoDAF CADM/AP233 project

21. 1. AP233 Demonstrator Initial work sponsored by NASA JPL Intended to:
further development sponsored by UK MOD and Eurostep
Intended to:
showcase AP233 functionality
enable creation of test data and to test AP233 functionality
provide target/source for vendor i/f implementations
Uses High Level API
native format is AP233 STEP ASCII File
High Level API has also been used for DOORS, Cradle and Requisite Pro interfaces

22. AP233 Demonstrator

23. AP233 Demonstrator Interfaces
DOORS (Telelogic)
Core (Vitech)
Slate (EDS)
SysML (Poseidon UML)
Cradle (3SL)
Also:
Requisite Pro
MS Word
MS Excel
MS Visio
MS Project

24. 2. SysML Assembly/AP233 project
For John Deere research
SysML team member
Define a mapping from SysML Assembly to STEP AP233/SysEng Structures
Implement mapping using an early UML 2/SysML tool
Import resulting data into “AP233 Demonstrator” to show what’s possible

25. The SysML Assembly Test Case Input
The Part Definitions
A Second Level Assembly
A Part in an Assembly
A Port in an Assembly
A Connector

26. SysML Meta-model example
Data structures like this support the diagram notation of SysML, SE’s never see this
Port concept defined

27. AP233 Structure/Interfaces example
Portions of AP233 EXPRESS model translated to UML, SE’s never see this either
Assembly/Port Link concept defined

28. Exchanged Part/Port in Assembly Output
Low-pass filter Assembly
Output Port in Assembly
Capacitor Part in Assembly

29. 3. DoDAF CADM/AP233 project For DoD/American Systems Corporation
SysML team member
Project currently underway
First demonstration planned for joint INCOSE/OMG conference early November 2004
Define mapping from several DoDAF Views to AP233
Implement two-way mapping between DoDAF CADM XML format and AP233 XML format

30. Example AP233 & DODAF Scenario
CASE/
RAD Tools
Systems
Engineering
Tools
e.g. System Architect
e.g. DOORS
CADM
XML
Data
Converter
e.g. Rational Rose
AP233
XML
e.g. Slate
etc.
etc.
DARS
PDM/
PLCS

31. Conclusions DoDAF, SysML and AP233
Improve the systems engineering of Systems of Systems
Support related analyses and project management decisions
Have different roles in the systems engineering process
DoDAF provides larger context/framework for SE
SysML is tool for SEs enabling consistency across DoDAF and other architectures/processes
AP233 for SE system integrators supporting a broad scope
enables SysML/other SE modeling paradigm exchange and legacy data extraction
opens up possibility of standardized shared data environments based on SysML and DoDAF
Proof-of-concepts show that they do work together

32. More Information AP233 DoDAF SysML
NASA AP233 Page at
Eurostep AP233 Page at
DoDAF
DoD NII Archive at
SysML
SysML Partners Page at
OMG SysEng SIG at
The International Council on Systems Engineering
INCOSE at