1 / 68

10 Dec 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda

10 Dec 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda. Announcements: This week: MORS WS 7 Dec Upcoming: FAC 14 Dec – vote on 2.02 Working on coordination of WG members with FAC reps for approval of WG AI/CR plans via the CSAR

dmelendez
Télécharger la présentation

10 Dec 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 10 Dec 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • MORS WS 7 Dec • Upcoming: • FAC 14 Dec – vote on 2.02 • Working on coordination of WG members with FAC reps for approval of WG AI/CR plans via the CSAR • Planning on coordinating DoDAF-DM2 WG F2F megasessions with DoDAF Plenaries and quarterly DARS WG’s. • WG question: would a Linked-In for DoDAF-DM2 WG be useful? Go ahead. • New References: • Scott Wright diagram and email in the Location folder • Dave Ellis Joint Action in the Services folder • Capabilities concepts for DoDAF DM2 WG (Bocast) in the Capability folder • Others? • Some “New” Action Items • 531, Capability relationships • 534, Definitions of important non-model terms • 537, desiredEffectDirectsActivity • 538, Not all Performers can desired an effect • 544, Pedigree activities • 549, Action • 557, Model Category • 572, Singleton Types • 582, DM2 Data Group Use Cases • 583, Missing Net Centric RA's • 585, Showing Software Processes • 589, Videos of Outreaches • 590, DoDAF PDF • 591, DoDAF Releasability • 621, Systems transitioning to Services • In-Progress SoA Clump • 141, SoA Execution Context • 342, Desired Effect in SoA • 383, Rules and Contexts • 393, SOAML • 395, Prescription of "role", basis of authority • 396, Is Vision truly distinct from DesiredEffect? • 397, How does a ServiceChannel distinguish itself from activityResourceOverlap? • 471, ServiceDescription desribes ServicePort, not Service • 477, SoAML Concepts • 478, OASIS SOA RAF Concepts • 481, Mandatory Service Descriptions and Ports • 490, Source / agreement / rule associated representation schemes • 575, Relationship between Capability and Performer should be derived, not declared THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING and PLEASE NO HOLD MUSAK

  2. Who desires? • Organization can set objectives and goals • Types of orgs can set objectives and goals • PersonRoleTypes (e.g., the President) can set objectives and goals • CVN-78 does it set objectives and goals? • Google maps or cloud email set objectives and goals? • Responsibility related to being an objective and goal setting? • An AgentCapableOfResponsibility is an Agent that consciously participates in a process • Might break some things • Might overcomplicate reification

  3. 004: (001, 005) tuple measureOfTypeActivityPerformableUnderCondition type CONDITION Says: apuc Î motapuc 006: (007, 004: (001: (002, 003), 005) 003 type MEASURE tuple activityPerformableUnderCondition question tuple CAPABILITY 001: (002, 003) Many-to-many type ACTIVITY To produce a desired effect (State of Resource) question Make peace 002 Many-to-many CAPABILITY MODEL State of Resource today future Whole-life of Taliban tuple measureOfTypeResource type ResourceTemporalState (t1, t2) (Taliban are mean) (t3, ¥)Taliban peace loving state Taliban in skinny state (t3, ¥)Taliban rule the world

  4. 03 Dec 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: none • Upcoming: • FAC 14 Dec – vote on 2.02 • Working on coordination of WG members with FAC reps • MORS WS 7 Dec • New References: • DAU Teaching Note on PPBE in the PPBE folder • DAU Teaching Note on PPBE and CJCSI 3100.01B JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING SYSTEM in PPBE folder • SOA History - Adoption(26Apr2010)-v2, a briefing for prepared for Mr. Wennergren and Mr. Shea in support of a few Executive level discussions with CAPE and others going back to February 2010, in the Services folder • One-Liners draft to headsup to FAC in the Presentation folder – tell them we’re just working on or show with DRAFT diagonally • Others? • Some “New” Action Items • 414, Ways • 428, Enterprise • 437, XML id • 455, OV-2 Anticipated Users • 491, State • 498, Rules • 511, How to categorize Arch Desc THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  5. Some of the “New” ones

  6. SoA Clump

  7. 19 Nov 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • Joint Architecture Working Group (JAWG) • DoDAF websites alignment • Upcoming: • Target Location, Designation, and Handoff System (TLDHS) DoDAF 2 pilot • FAC 7 or 14 Dec • Comments on WG activities expected before • Working on coordination of WG members with FAC reps • New References: • JAWG briefing under Tutorials and Briefings • Others? • DoDAF Model and “one-liners” continue from CV-5 down • In queue: • Prioritization for 2.03 -- SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Capability model (Terebesi and Bocast) • Naming pattern (Bocast) • Partitions (Terebesi) • Capabilities vs Mission Threads (Badger) • Measure of desire (Astile) • 154 Open Action Items THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  8. One liners • See attached MS Word document

  9. 12 Nov 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • SA DoDAF 2.0 demo to DCIO A&I team • Feb DoDAF Plenary planning -- What are the attributes desired in a DoDAF 2.0 Tool from an architect perspective? • DM2 OWL file 2.02 – will be on WG site under 2.02, along with OWL Editor • Upcoming: • DM2 JAWG brief • ELS AV-2 Tiger Team • Target Location, Designation, and Handoff System (TLDHS) DoDAF 2 pilot • New References: • Comments on DoDAF 2 DM2 00-06 (Bocast) on References and Research root • Others? • DoDAF Model and “one-liners” continue from CV-2 down • In queue: • Prioritization for 2.03 -- SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Capability model (Terebesi and Bocast) • Naming pattern (Bocast) • Partitions (Terebesi) • Capabilities vs Mission Threads (Badger) • Measure of desire (Astile) THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  10. Capability Viewpoint Models CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  11. Capability Data Group CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  12. Core Components of Capability CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  13. CV-1 Vision CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  14. CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  15. CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  16. CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  17. CV-5 Cap to Org Development CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  18. CV-6 Capability/Activities CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  19. CV-7 Capability/Services CV-3 Capability Phasing CV-2 Capability Taxonomy CV-4 Capability Dependencies CV-1 Vision CV-6 Capabilities to Operational Activities Mapping CV-5 Capability To Organizational Development Mapping CV-7 Capabilities to Services Mapping

  20. Resource State (Objectives, Goals, …) Dependencies Diseased Taliban Dead Taliban ICBMs and Tridents in place Peaceful Taliban Vaporized Taliban Obliterated Taliban Territory Ability to drop 1,000 2,000 lb-ers A day Taliban become hippies Fully trained PSYOPS

  21. 05 Nov 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • FAC discussions on DoDAF-DM2 2.02, DoDAF-DM2 WG, and CM Plan. • WG members not contacted for 2.02 & CMP by FAC reps yet. • UPDM Meetings in Cheltenham -- good progress made! • Upcoming: • TBS • New References: • DoDAF-DM2 2.02 and DoDAF-DM2 CM Plan decision briefs, DoDAF-DM2 2.02 Version Description Document (VDD), and other FAC materials in Working Group Information -> ASRG Information • Others? • DoDAF Model and “one-liners” revisit • In queue: • Prioritization for 2.03 -- SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Capability model (Terebesi) • Naming pattern (Bocast) • Partitions (Terebesi) THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  22. CONOPS Rabbit Hole • A verbal or graphic statement that clearly and concisely expresses what the joint force commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources. The concept is designed to give an overall picture of the operation. Also called commander’s concept or CONOPS. (JP 5-0) (Source: Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) • GENERAL INFORMATION/NARRATIVE • As defined in Joint Publication 1-02, CONOPs is a verbal or graphic statement, in broad outline, of a commander’s assumptions or intent in regard to an operation or series of operations. The CONOPs is frequently embodied in campaign plans and operation plans; in the latter case, particularly when the plans cover a series of connected operations to be carried out simultaneously or in succession. The CONOPs is designed to give an overall picture of the operation. It is included primarily for additional clarity of purpose. (Source: CJCSI 3170.01G – Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 1 March 2009) • CONOPs, as described in CJCSI 3170 JCIDS series are written to describe how a joint force commander may organize and employ forces in the near term (now through 7 years into the future) in order to solve a current or emerging military problem. These CONOPs provide the operational context needed to examine and validate current capabilities and may be used to examine new and/or proposed capabilities required to solve a current or emerging problem. These CONOPs and the appropriate assessment results are coordinated with the appropriate Functional Capabilities Board (FCB) and its capabilities are submitted to Joint Staff/J-8 as potential joint capabilities documents (JCDs) via the knowledge management and decision support (KMDS) system. • When a CONOPs is used as the basis for a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA), it must be first endorsed by the JROC, combatant command, or sponsoring DoD component. CONOPs that have not been staffed through the JROC for endorsement must be attached as an appendix to the JCD, Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), or joint DOTMLPF Change Request (DCR) so that the reviewers can understand the context used to identify and evaluate the capabilities identified. There is no strict format for a CONOPs, but it should cover the following areas at a minimum: the problem being addressed, the mission, the commander’s intent, an operational overview, functions or effects to be carried out/achieved, and the roles and responsibilities of affected organizations. (Source: Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) - Updated February 2009)

  23. Capability

  24. 29 Oct 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • Semantic Technology Conference • Upcoming: • UPDM Team • New References: • Resource defs comments by Alex Bocast, in Resources folder • MODAF 1.2 SOVs.pdf in Services folder • Others? • DoDAF System vs Services Models • In queue: • Prioritization for 2.03 -- SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Capability model (Terebesi) • Naming pattern (Bocast) • Partitions (Terebesi) • Pilot and adopter status? • JCAs THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  25. SvcV – SV Side-by-Side (1-liners draft)

  26. SvcV – SV Side-by-Side (1-liners draft)

  27. Services discussion • 3 modes of ownership – procure system • Don’t need the “how” in service agreement/contract, no detail about inards • Not describing “how” is not the same as external • Accreditation  SV’s • Service vs service provider (activityPerformedByPerformer)

  28. MODAF SOV’s • Typing that might be useful for discovery • Description? • Mapping meaning capabilityOfPerformer

  29. Service Discovery Service Description Service Contract Service Security Service to System Service to Operational Activity Discover through description -- Description is part of contract? Example: contract template Rules associated with service ≈ Performer part-of Performer?, or activity1ConsumesResource and activity2ProducesResource where activity1 is performed by a Service and activity2 is performed by a System ≈ activityPerformedByPerformer where the Performer is a Service WBB SvcV Recommendations

  30. Homework • Examples • SAR • Garbage • Room service • Burger King • Things to think about and study • Service vs Service Provider (OASIS?, …) • Memo on types of Service (Ben Bovee) • How Larry’s SvcV’s relate to DM2 • Study MOD CIO some • Alex’s Capability deck has rendering of OASIS model

  31. DoDAF Def and Source Defs

  32. DoDAF Def and Source Defs

  33. 2 System — A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. i 4 7 9 6 5 3 1 9 9 8 DoDAF 2.0 DM2:System1 • Thing : Type : IndividualType : Resource : Performer : System • System — A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. • no citation • no annotation or comment • Semantic insufficiency. The word “group” signifies an observational construct. A group is a concept that an observer imposes upon the world to make sense of what is observed. A group does not have its own ontic significance: a group is merely an abbreviated way to refer to some set of things without enumerating and naming those things. In other words, groupness is in the eyes of the beholder; epistemologically, we can never be certain that what is counted in my group is counted in your group. • [retracted] • Semantics: pesky disjunction. Read as combinatorial conjunction: the ways in which things may be related include functional, physical, and behavioral ways. • Grammar. The phrase “functionally … related” modifies the word “group”, but “group” is given in the singular. The adjective “related” asserts a relationship between this group and something else, but that something else is here unspecified. If the asserted relationship is to be with another group, then “group” must be given in the plural. However, the authors may have intended the phrase “functionally … related” to characterize “elements”; if so, the phrase is on the wrong side of “group”. • Semantics: pesky disjunction. Read as nonexclusive conjunction of permitted possibilities: these elements may be interacting and they may be interdependent. Definitionally, this leaves us at a loss because definition requires certainty. If these elements may be not-interacting and may also be not-interdependent, then these elements may be neither. What is wanted here is a higher-level abstraction to absorb this indeterminacy. • Definitional epistemology. How are we to determine the dividing line between regularly and not-regularly? What yardstick are we to use to measure regularness? • Grammar: unexpected distribution. Grammatically, the word “regularly” distributes across the disjunction: of regularly interacting or regularly interdependent elements. The resulting phrase—regularly interdependent—is problematic. • Semantic insufficiency. An element is generally taken to be something tangible and observable. The use of this term implies that system is here intended to be something that may be observed only as a static snapshot of physical things. In some communities, the notion of system may encompass processes that play out dynamically, that is, a system is something that does rather than something that is. What is needed is definition of “element” in this context: should this term signify physical entity or should this term signify process as well as artifact? element — an artifact that is one of the individual parts of which a composite entity is made up; especially a part that can be separated from or attached to a system [WordNet; 2010-04-23]; a fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity [AHD; 2010-04-23]; a separate identifiable part of something, or a distinct group within a larger group [Encarta; 2010-04-23]; a constituent part [M-W; 2010-04-23] group — any number of entities (members) considered as a unit [WordNet; 2010-04-23]

  34. 2 system ≈ a group of things related in functional, physical, and behavioral ways. System — A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. i ii by deconstruction & reconstruction 7 4 6 9 9 8 9 5 1 6 DoDAF 2.0 DM2:System2 • Domain knowledge. On what grounds are these sorts of relations—functional, physical, behavioral—asserted as the defining relations among groups or among elements of a system? Lacking definitions for these terms, we can only kinda sorta guess at the authors’ intent. • Semantics: Diogenistic poultry. By this statement, a gaggle of geese is a system, a brick retaining wall is a system, and a stage production of Our Town is a system. • Semantics: conceptual asymmetry. The problem becomes apparent when we try to avoid the vagueness of the word “ways”. We want to say something like: related by function, behavior, and … What are we now to do with “physical ways”? The wording “related by function, behavior, and physics” would be quite odd. • Semantics. The nature of system continues to bedevil erstwhile definers. The fundamental difficulty for architects is that system is an analytical construct rather than a real, tangible, observable thing. We can point to pieces that are physical and we can point to parts that are behaviors, but system is a boundary we draw around these things to simplify (make manageable) our discourse. Looking at DoD notions of system, historically, this boundary keeps shifting and expanding as previous notions of system prove insufficient and inadequate. • From a nominalist perspective, a DoD system is just a way to aggregate related expenditures. Whether these are necessary or sufficient expenditures we don’t care: we have a name that serves to drag these expenditures through our conversation. In nominalist modeling, a system is merely a name (e.g., UML class) to which we attach a variety of things (e.g., associations to other classes). • From an ontological perspective, well, it is difficult to argue that systems actually exist. To do so, we must identify the where and when of a system; unfortunately, because system is a construct of observation (a conversational convenience rather than a specification) we can never be sure that what I see as system is what you see as system. When you are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, it may be conversationally clear and unremarkable that you are in the Atlantic Ocean. However, it is really one water mass that encircles the globe: the divisions between Atlantic Ocean, Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, and Indian Ocean are at best arbitrary. We have no sound or trustworthy epistemological basis for asserting that any particular drop of water is in any particularly named ocean at any particular time; we have only a conversational convention. behavior — the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances [WordNet; 2010-04-23] behaviorally — the way in which something functions or operates [M-W; 2010-04-23] behavioral — of or relating to behavior [WordNet; 2010-04-23] function — what something is used for [WordNet; 2010-04-23] functionally — with respect to function [WordNet; 2010-04-23] physically — in accord with physical laws [WordNet; 2010-04-23] system — see following slide…

  35. DoDAF 2.0 DM2:System3 From WordNet [2010-04-24]: (n) system (instrumentality that combines interrelated interacting artifacts designed to work as a coherent entity) "he bought a new stereo system"; "the system consists of a motor and a small computer" (n) system, scheme (a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole) "a vast system of production and distribution and consumption keep the country going" (n) system ((physical chemistry) a sample of matter in which substances in different phases are in equilibrium) "in a static system oil cannot be replaced by water on a surface"; "a system generating hydrogen peroxide" (n) system, system of rules (a complex of methods or rules governing behavior) "they have to operate under a system they oppose"; "that language has a complex system for indicating gender" (n) arrangement, organization, organisation, system (an organized structure for arranging or classifying) "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification" (n) system (a group of physiologically or anatomically related organs or parts) "the body has a system of organs for digestion" (n) system (a procedure or process for obtaining an objective) "they had to devise a system that did not depend on cooperation" (n) system (the living body considered as made up of interdependent components forming a unified whole) "exercise helped him get the alcohol out of his system" (n) organization, organisation, system (an ordered manner; orderliness by virtue of being methodical and well organized) "his compulsive organization was not an endearing quality"; "we can't do it unless we establish some system around here"

  36. 22 Oct 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda • Announcements: • This week: • NR-KPP WG • MARCORSYSCOM pilot • Upcoming: • UPDM Team • M&S and other relevant tools engagement • New References: • DoDAF defs comments by Alex Bocast, on R&R root • JointActionDiscussion-Sandia.pptx, MOD CIO - Service Analysis Report - v1.3.pdf, and Services_in_DoDAF_FINAL - WBB.pdf in Services folder • Others? • DoDAF Model (View) Names and One-Liner Consistency and Grammar Fixes, AI # 579 (Lee) • Prioritization for 2.03 • SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Others: • Capability model (Terebesi) • Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex • Partitions – optional or mandatory? • Pilot and adopter status • JCAs look like tasks – map to Capability, aggregation relationship, high-level capabilities THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING!

  37. 8 Oct 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING! • Announcements: • This week: • FAC • IS&T NR-KPP WG – draft 6212.01F – Models (CV-2, 3, 5, 6) are required, Excel DM2 template optional. Does Capability = Activity? • IAC-UGEAF – trust and willingness model, policies • Upcoming: • MARCORSYSCOM pilot • New References: • IAC-UGEAF (new folder, three docs) • Dave copy Presentation (new folder with Lee / McDaniel and Bocast Model description notes) • System Def Comments Bocast 2010-10-01 in Systems folder • Guidance Def Comments Bocast 2010-10-01 and Rule Def Comments Bocast 2010-10-01 in Rules and Guidance folder • Capabilities and Services – find Bocast document and distribute • Others? • DoDAF Model (View) Names and One-Liner Consistency Suggestions, AI # 579 (Lee) • Systems vs Services, Performers vs. Systems, etc. – definitions, inter-relationships, structural distinctions, e.g., AI # 398. It seems like the separation is contrived in many cases since the service is a mechanism to access "capabilities", in many cases Systems. • Definitions of Systems, Rules, and Guidance (Bocast) • See if “A Perfomer whose Activities are constrained by Rules or Guidance.” • Need to look at Rules and Guidance. • PersonRoles • Prioritization for 2.03 • SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Others: • Capability model (Terebesi) • Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex • Partitions – optional or mandatory? • CV-6 contained in all other CV’s (briefed but no AI yet) • What is a Service Port? • Pilot and adopter status • JCAs look like tasks – map to Capability, aggregation relationship, high-level capabilities

  38. Relevant Governance Process Documents • 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 • DoDAF & DM2 WG EA COI • COI POA&M • COI Data Management Working Group • Meets Quarterly, 1st meeting was 2 July 2010 • COI Metrics

  39. FAC is Small Formal Voting BodyWG is Large Collaborative DISA Army DISA NSA DISA DoN AF Marine Corps * 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 DoDAF-DM2 Change Requests • COI Guidance • DoDAF-DM2 Action Item Prioritization • DoDAF-DM2 Baseline Direction • JFCOM USD(I) DCMO P&R AT&L DNI CIO STRATCOM JCS J6 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 • 230+ members • Meets 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 www.silverbulletinc.com/DoDAF-DM2

  40. Monthly Report to FAC • Purposes: • Full visibility of WG activities and plans • Opportunity for FAC prioritization • Formal level of interaction • FAC is formal voting body – WG is collaborative • Action Item / Change Request Status • Configuration Status Accounting Report • Summary of WG activities • Action Item Summary • Detailed status of all open Action Items

  41. Lee / McDaniel markup (sent after last week’s meeting) • Bocast inputs (in References Presentation folder) • “These one-liners are generally elliptically constructed: view-name – view-object.”

  42. Model Categories (DoDAF 2.02) Tabular: Models which present data arranged in rows and columns, which includes structured text as a special case. Structural: This category comprises diagrams describing the structural aspects of an architecture. Behavioral: This category comprises diagrams describing the behavioral aspects of an architecture. Mapping: These models provide matrix (or similar) mappings between two different types of information. Ontology: Models which extend the DoDAF ontology for a particular architecture. Pictorial: This category is for free-form pictures. Timeline: This category comprises diagrams describing the programmatic aspects of an architecture. Model Categories ≠ Presentation Types (AI # 557)

  43. Extending <System id=“idref001” > <Name>IT System</Name> </System> <System id=“idref002” > <Name>Operating System</Name> </System> <superSubtype id=“idref003” place1=“001” place2=“002” /> <System id=“idref009” > <Name>Big System</Name> </System> <System id=“idref010” > <Name>Little Bitty System</Name> </System> <System id=“idref004” > <Name>Bit</Name> </System> <WholePartType id=“idref005” place1=“001” place2=“004” /> <WholePartTypeType id=“idref006” /> <Name>ReallyBigWPT</Name> </WholePartTypeType> <WholePartType id=“idref007” place1=“009” place2=“010” /> <typeInstance id=“idref008” place1=“006” place2=“007” />

  44. 1 Oct 2010 DoDAF - DM2 WG Agenda THANK YOU FOR BEING ATTENTIVE TO MUTING WHEN NOT SPEAKING! • Announcements: • This week: • NR-KPP Arch SWG – focus on data not just pictures • MCSC adoption of DoDAF 2 support -- • Upcoming: • IS&T NR-KPP WG Oct 4-6 • 7 Oct IAC-UGEAF • FAC 5 Oct • New References: • Others? • ARO and Joint Action (Benfield) • DoDAF Model (View) Names and One-Liner Consistency Suggestions, AI # 579 • Systems vs Services, Performers vs. Systems, etc. – definitions, inter-relationships, structural distinctions, e.g., AI # 398 • Prioritization for 2.03 • SoA Consolidation -- Ellis • Others: • Capability model (Terebesi) • Naming pattern, System meaning inputs – Alex • Partitions – optional or mandatory? • CV-6 contained in all other CV’s (briefed but no AI yet) • What is a Service Port?

  45. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction of 3-adic to 2-adic examples. DM2 Use-Case Let Ap={a1,a3}, and Ac={a2,a4} where each ap in Ap is a producing Activity and each ac in Ac is a consuming Activity. Let R = {r1 } where each r in R is a Resource. Let an ActivityResourceFlowSet be defined as some subset, ARFS= {(ap,r,ac)| The activity ap produces a resource r consumed by activity ac}, of Ap x R x Ac. Consider the following graphs and the corresponding ActivityResourceFlowSets. Graph 1 Performer 3 Performer 1 Execution context Resource(type) 1 Resource(type) 1 Performer 2 Performer 4 ActivityResourceFlowSet1 = {(1,r1,2),(3,r1,4)} Table 1 Table form of ARFS1

  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction of 3-adic to 2-adic examples. DM2 Use-Case Let Ap={a1,a3}, and Ac={a2,a4} where each ap in Ap is a producing Activity and each ac in Ac is a consuming Activity. Let R = {r1 } where each r in R is a Resource. Let an ActivityResourceFlowSet be defined as some subset, ARFS= {(ap,r,ac)| The activity ap produces a resource r consumed by activity ac}, of Ap x R x Ac. Consider the following graphs and the corresponding ActivityResourceFlowSets. Graph 1 WSJ Washington Post Execution context News 1 =? News 1 My neighbor Me ActivityResourceFlowSet1 = {(1,r1,2),(3,r1,4)} Table 1 Table form of ARFS1

  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction of 3-adic to 2-adic examples. DM2 Use-Case Let Ap={a1,a3}, and Ac={a2,a4} where each ap in Ap is a producing Activity and each ac in Ac is a consuming Activity. Let R = {r1 } where each r in R is a Resource. Let an ActivityResourceFlowSet be defined as some subset, ARFS= {(ap,r,ac)| The activity ap produces a resource r consumed by activity ac}, of Ap x R x Ac. Consider the following graphs and the corresponding ActivityResourceFlowSets. Graph 1 JTAC 123 JTAR JTAR1 JTAR2 Execution context JTAR1c1 JTAR1c2 Battalion FSC Brigade FSC JTAR2c1 ActivityResourceFlowSet1 = {(1,r1,2),(3,r1,4)} Table 1 Table form of ARFS1

  48. Graph 2 ActivityResourceFlowSet2 = {(1,r1,4),(3,r1,2)} Table 2 Table form of ARFS2 “A 2-adic projection of a 3-adic relation L is the 2-adic relation that results from deleting one column of the table for L and then deleting all but one row of any resulting rows that happen to be identical in content. In other words, the multiplicity of any repeated row is ignored.”-Wikipedia Definition Consider the following partial 2-adic projective reductions of ActiviytResourceFlowSet1 and ActivityResourceFlowSet2. Set of ActivityProducesResource = Projap,r(ActiviytResourceFlowSet1) = {(1,r1),(3,r1)} = Projap,r(ActiviytResourceFlowSet2). Table 3 proj_apr(ARFS1)

  49. Table 4 proj_apr(ARFS2) Set of ActivityConsumesResource = Projr,ac(ActivityResourceFlowSet1)={(r1,2),(r1,4)} = Projr,ac(ActivityResourceFlowSet2). Table 5 proj_rac(ARFS1) Table 6 proj_rac(ARFS2) Without considering Projap,ac(ActivityResourceFlowSet), ActivityResourceFlowSets may be projectively irreducible. That is, any graph that contains a sub-graph of the form of Graph 1 or 2, will be irreducible. If each ActivityResourceFlow to be reduced carries a unique Resource, the resulting ActivityResourceFlowSet can be reduced without ambiguity.

More Related