Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team."— Presentation transcript:

1 DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team

2 2 Agenda DoDAF-DM2 WG history DoDAF-DM2 WG Objectives Current DoDAF-DM2 WG Participants DoDAF-DM2 WG Challenges DoDAF-DM2 WG Way Ahead

3 3 Lay of DoDAF Land 1.Model (view) specifications Operational Capabilities Services Systems Data and Information Standards Projects 2.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! –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 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

4 4 Views

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9 Conceptual Level of DM2 is Simple anything can have Measures Guidance Rule StandardAgreement Activity Resource Performer System Service Organization PersonRole Materiel Information Data Capability Project Location GeoPolitical Condition Not shown but implied by the IDEAS Foundation: Everything is 4-D and so has temporal parts, i.e., states Everything has parts Everything has subtypes is-performable-under requires- ability-to- perform achieves-desired- effect (a state of a resource) is-part-of describes- something is-at consumes- and- produces has is-the- goal-of constrains is- performed- by is-realized- by Backup slide has term definitions

10 10 DoDAF 2 Conceptual Data Model Terms Activity: Work, not specific to a single organization, weapon system or individual that transforms inputs (Resources) into outputs (Resources) or changes their state. Resource: Data, Information, Performers, Materiel, or Personnel Types that are produced or consumed. –Materiel: Equipment, apparatus or supplies that are of interest, without distinction as to its application for administrative or combat purposes. –Information: The state of a something of interest that is materialized -- in any medium or form -- and communicated or received. Data: Representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by humans or by automatic means. Examples could be whole models, packages, entities, attributes, classes, domain values, enumeration values, records, tables, rows, columns, and fields. –Performer: Any entity - human, automated, or any aggregation of human and/or automated - that performs an activity and provides a capability. Organization: A specific real-world assemblage of people and other resources organized for an on-going purpose. System: A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements. Person Role: A category of persons defined by the role or roles they share that are relevant to an architecture. Service: A mechanism to enable access to a set of one or more capabilities, where the access is provided using a prescribed interface and is exercised consistent with constraints and policies as specified by the service description. The mechanism is a Performer. The capabilities accessed are Resources -- Information, Data, Materiel, Performers, and Geo-political Extents. Capability: The ability to achieve a Desired Effect under specified (performance) standards and conditions through combinations of ways and means (activities and resources) to perform a set of activities. Condition: The state of an environment or situation in which a Performer performs. Desired Effect: A desired state of a Resource. Measure: The magnitude of some attribute of an individual. Location: A point or extent in space that may be referred to physically or logically. Guidance: An authoritative statement intended to lead or steer the execution of actions. –Rule: A principle or condition that governs behavior; a prescribed guide for conduct or action. Agreement: A consent among parties regarding the terms and conditions of activities that said parties participate in. Standard: A formal agreement documenting generally accepted specifications or criteria for products, processes, procedures, policies, systems, and/or personnel. Project: A temporary endeavor undertaken to create Resources or Desired Effects. Geopolitical ExtentA geospatial extent whose boundaries are by declaration or agreement by political parties.

11 11 PES Structure Planned for future interoperability with IDEAS 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. Architecture data – tag names and definitions are exactly from DM2 LDM Extra goodies for Dublin Core (optional) Packaging, e.g., overall classification marking XML stuff -- unimportant Screen- scrape of the actual PES XSD This could be made optional

12 12 DoDAF-DM2 WG history DoDAF 2.0 development in was done via 3 technical working groups: 1.Presentation 2.Methods 3.Data Data TWG methodology during DoDAF 2.0 development –Top-down from DoDs six core processes and their information requirements collected as part of the requirements workshops –Bottoms-up from ~ two dozen existing data models –Business rules enabled great success – DM2 has only ~ 250 pieces compared to predecessor CADMs ~ 16,000 DoDAF 2.0 publication in May 2009 –Only Data TWG established a significant membership and meeting tempo and so it was a resource of opportunity to assume DoDAF configuration management recommendations

13 13 Top-Down / Bottom-Up Development DoDAF 2.0: Conceptual Data Model (Vol I) Logical Data Model (Vol II) Physical Exchange Model (Vol III) Existing / Emerging Schema, Models, and Databases Data Model Development COI 1 COI n COI Coordination PPBE Process Information Requirements JCIDS Process Information Requirements Ops Planning Process Information Requirements SE Process Information Requirements DoD Core Process Information Requirements Collection UCORE DAS Process Information Requirements CPM Process Information Requirements

14 14 12/3 Strawman – list of important or recurring core words/terms/concepts with source definition(s) 3/3 CDM version Concepts (defined) 2.Relationships (some typing, e.g., super/sub, cardinality) 1/3 Partial Draft – proposed definitions, some harmonization (e.g., via super/subtyping, determining aliases) 2/3 Interim Draft – Initial relationships (e.g., "performs", "part-of",...) 1. Overviews of Models2. Collect the terms 3. Make a pass on the Core Terms 4. Gather authoritative definitions for Core terms 1 = Core, critical to process or very common in architectures 2 = Derived or less common 3 = TBD 4 = TBD 5 = TBD Proposed definitions (+rationale, examples, and aliases) 7. Relationships 8. Relationship Types 5. Group related terms Conceptual Data Model Process

15 15 Sources Models a.CADM 1.5 b.IDEAS c.UPDM d.BMM e.Hay/Zachman f.ASM g.CRIS h.Conceptual CADM in DoDAF 1.0 / prototype CADM 2.0 i.M3 j.NAF Meta Model k.DoI Meta Model l.JC3IEDM m.GML n.UCORE 1.1 o.GEIA 927 p.AP233 q.SUMO and ISO (via IDEAS) r.FEA Reference Models s.JFCOM JACAE Definitions 1.IEEE 2.ISO 3.W3C 4.OMG 5.EIA 6.DODD & DODI 7.JCS Pubs, especially CJCSI's 8.Models in the Source_Candidates_ ppt 9.DoDAF 10.Other frameworks: Zachman, MODAF, TOGAF, NAF, FEA 12.BMM 13.Worknet 14.Wikipedia 15.English dictionaries 16.DoDAF Glossary

16 16 Definition Phase Example 1 Category Capability Technical Term Capability Proposed Definition Capability: (n) 1. The ability to execute a specified course of action. (JP 1-02) 2. The ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks. (JCIDS) Potentially Related Terms or Aliases Source/Current Definition (source) definition (JCIDS): The ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks. (DoDAF/CADM): An ability to achieve an objective. (DDDS Counter (333/1)(A)) (JC3IEDM): The potential ability to do work, perform a function or mission, achieve an objective, or provide a service. (NAF): The ability of one or more resources to deliver a specified type of effect or a specified course of action. (GEN TERM) (NAF): A high level specification of the enterprise's ability. (MM) (JCS 1-02): The ability to execute a specified course of action. (A capability may or may not be accompanied by an intention.) (Webster's): 1. The quality of being capable; ability. 2. A talent or ability that has potential for development or use. 3. The capacity to be used, treated, or developed for a specific purpose. Examples"The soldier shall be able to load and fire his individual weapon." (JP 1-02) "The soldier shall be able to load and fire his individual weapon from (positions) on a trainfire range, in (weather) to achieve a minimum score of "Marksman" on the Army Marksm Definition Rationale Authority: "The Secretary of Defense, by DOD Directive , 23 August 1989, Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, has directed the use of JP 1-02 throughout the Department of Defense to ensure standardization of military and associated terminology.

17 17 WG Business Rules Essential for Broad Community Consensus

18 18 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

19 19 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

20 20 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

21 21 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

22 22 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

23 23 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

24 24 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

25 25 DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

26 26 DoDAF-DM2 WG Objectives

27 27 DoDAF-DM2 is under formal configuration control 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 IN REVISION PER FAC DIRECTION

28 28 FAC is Small Formal Voting Body WG is Large & Collaborative FAC – Voting – 23* votes AF DoN Army Marine Corps DISA DoD CIO DNI CIO AT&LP&R USD(I) DCMO JCS J6 STRATCOM JFCOM NSA * Some C/S/A have multiple members COI Coordination Groups DoD MDR WG DoD COI Forum Vendors EA/ITA Tool M&S Data Analysis Repository Data Integration Data Exchange Pilots Early Adopters Federation Framework & Ontology Groups OMG / INCOSE / NDIA IDEAS / NAF UCORE Enterprise Vocabularies 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 DoDAF-DM WG – Collaborative – Agreed-upon business rules enable analysis of different opinions CR Technical Redirectoin CR Prioritization Redirectoin DoDAF-DM2 Configuration Status Accounting Report (CSAR) DoDAF-DM2 Baseline Status DoDAF-DM2 WG Activity Summaries COI Metrics and Progress Report 400+ members + ~12 new each week Meets bi- weekly To join, go to DoDAF 2.0 website

29 29 Bi-weekly WG Meetings Collaboration site Readaheads and notebooks References folders Discussion groups CR Submission Tools

30 30 Monthly Report to FAC Purposes: –Full visibility of WG activities and plans –Opportunity for FAC re-direction Technical Prioritization Action Item / Change Request Status Configuration Status Accounting Report –Summary of WG activities –Change Request Summary –Detailed status of all open Change Requests

31 31 DoDAF-DM2 Change Request Processing DRAFT

32 32 DoDAF CR Detailed Processing DRAFT TBD

33 33 DM2 CR Detailed Processing DRAFT

34 34 DoDAF-DM2 Version Process DRAFT

35 35 Current DoDAF-DM2 WG Participants Over 450 members –Military, Government, Industry, Vendors, Academia, and professional organizations –Operators, architects, tool developers, repository operators, and data analysts –All FAC Components represented + IC Monthly participants and full member list reported to FAC in monthly CSAR Imminent tasker to Components to identify their WG representative(s) –Multiple reps will be OK, e.g., Navy could choose SPAWAR, NAVSEA, NAVAIR, OPNAV, and ASN RDA

36 36 DoDAF-DM2 WG Challenges 1.WG growth – from a dozen members to over 400, adding ~ 12 / week –A new member orientation package to be automatically sent upon registration is being developed 2.Separating material that needs to be controlled from that that doesnt –E.g., History of the DoDAF probably does not warrant formal review by Components and control by the FAC –Conversely, the viewpoints/views and DM2 do 3.Cleanup of legacy text and focus of viewpoints/views towards six core processes –Wordsmithing is insufficient to resolve –Tools that will help: FEAF, Core Process information analyses, and DM2 disambiguation power

37 37 DoDAF-DM2 WG Way Ahead 1.ASRG & FAC Governance to be updated 2.FAC Component reps formal tasker soon to be issued 3.Version tempo to slow to annual or semi- annual 4.Versions will go through review by Components by formal tasker 5.Predicted future CR sources: –Coordination with FEAF, JARM, and CUDEAF –Core process initiatives, e.g., IT Acquisition Reform

38 38 DoD Architectures COI WG is being considered Would cover, perhaps on a rotating basis: –Architecture information sharing needs –Architecture standards (i.e., DoDAF, DM2, others) –Architecture tools (i.e., current vendor list, DARS, others) –Architecture relevance in core processes and governance –Architecture federation –Architecture best practices DRAFT

39 39 Welcome! We look forward to your participation.

Download ppt "DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google