1. Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP)
Draft Timetable
As of June 2013
Matthew Hause, UAFP Group Co-Chair (Atego)
Graham Bleakley UAFP Group Co-Chair (IBM)
Lonnie Van Zandt UAFP Group Co-Chair (No Magic)

2. OMG Technology Adoption Process - RFP
OMG technology adoptions revolve around the RFP, or Request for Proposals:
The issuing of an RFP by vote of a Technical Committee (TC) officially starts the adoption process running.
The RFP itself is the requirements document for the future specification.
The RFP lists the original deadline dates for each stage of the adoption process.
OMG members are companies or organizations. Companies that respond to RFPs are referred to as submitters or submitting companies.

3. OMG Technology Adoption Process - FTF
Once the specification is adopted by the OMG, the TC charters a Finalization Task Force (FTF).
The FTF performs the first maintenance revision on the specification, resolving issues submitted to OMG, while simultaneously producing implementations back in their companies.
The FTF-revised version of the specification is adopted as official OMG technology. This time it receives a release number, and is designated an available specification.
The document is edited into a formal OMG specification.
Typically, products supporting the specification reach the market around this time too.

4. OMG Technology Adoption Process - RTF
Once approved, a recurring maintenance cycle starts.
The TC charters a Revision Task Force (RTF) and sets deadlines for its report and specification revision.
The RTF collects and acts on issues submitted to OMG, producing a revised specification.
The revised specification is adopted through the series of votes.
A new RTF is chartered, and the process repeats.

5. Why and When: Historical Development of AF’s.
C4ISR
Architecture Framework v1.0
Architecture Framework v2.0
DoDAF
v1.0
MODAF
1996
1997
2003
2005
v1.5
2007
v1.1
NAF
Scope of UPDM 1.0
Approved Sept 2008
Meta-Model (M3)
expressed using
UML Notation
v1.2
2008
v3.1
V2.0
2009
DNDAF
v1.7
Scope of UPDM 2.0
ETC June 2011

6. UPDM 2.x Maintenance Revisions
Draft UPDM 2.0 (2.1/2.2) Roadmap
UPDM 2.x Maintenance Revisions
UPDM 2.1 RTF Charter June 2011
UPDM 2.1 RTF: Completed & Submitted to OMG Dec 2012
UPDM 2.1 OMG will Issue Specification ~June 2013
UPDM 2.1 Submitted to ISO for adoption.
UPDM 2.2 RTF Charter Dec 2012
Necessary due to MIWG XMI issues
Ongoing fixes
UPDM 2.2 RTF: Completed & Submitted to OMG Mar 2014
UPDM 2.2 OMG will Issue Specification ~June 2014

7. Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (1 of 4)
Charter UAFP 1.0 RFP Issued September 2013
Name change to Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP)
Current version of DoDAF 2.0x
MODEM 1.0 (Previously called MODAF)
Current Version of NATO Architecture Framework
Canadian DNDAF (Depending on participation of members)
Other frameworks may be supported depending on participation of members.
Priorities for requirements will be based on demand and participation of members

8. Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (2 of 4)
Mandatory Requirements
Provide Domain Metamodel derived from MODEM (Abstract Syntax and Constraints)
Profile at 2 levels of compliance, L0 consisting of UML 2.5 Extending SysML 1.4, and L1 using BPMN 2.0 or version 1.0 of the UML Profile for BPMN
Architecture Modeling Support for Defense and Civilian Government, and Industry Organizations
Use of SysML Requirements Elements and Diagrams
Use of SysML Parametrics Elements and Diagrams mapped to Measurements in UAFP
Support for Data and Information Viewpoint, Views and Artifacts: Conceptual, Logical, And Physical Schema Models
Impact Assessment for Backward Compatibility with UPDM 2.x
Requirements Traceability Matrix to supported frameworks
Example Architecture Description
Matrix of Applicable UAFP Elements and Relationships For Each Presentation Artifact
Model Interchange

9. Draft UAFP 1.0 (was UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (3 of 4)
Non-Mandatory Requirements
UML Profile for NIEM
Information Exchange Packaging Policy Vocabulary
Support for Views and Artifacts in Support of SoS Life Cycle Processes and Analyses
Export to RDF
Human Systems Integration (HSI)
Diagram Definition Specification
Architecture data mappings and transformations

10. Draft UAFP 1.0 (UPDM 3.0) Roadmap (4 of 4)
UAFP 1.0 RFP Response:
Initial submission to OMG September 2014
Revised submission to OMG December 2014
UAFP 1.0 FTF (Finalization Task Force) Charter March 2015
UAFP 1.0 FTF Completion/Submission September 2015
UAFP 1.0 OMG will Issue Specification ~December 2015
Maintenance Revision
UAFP 1.1 RTF Charter September 2015
UAFP 1.1 RTF Response: Completed & Submitted to OMG September 2016
UAFP 1.1 OMG will Issue Specification ~December 2016

11. The Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN)
Reference Document 3195
development of the AMN architecture in 2010 – Lessons Learned
Torsten Graeber, NATO C3 Agency
June 2011
The Hague

12. What is the AMN?
The Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN) is the primary Coalition Command, Control Communication and Computers Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network in Afghanistan for all ISAF forces and operations. It is a federation of networks with the AMN Core provided by NATO and national network extensions.
Planning for the AMN is supported by a multi-national, collaborative effort to develop and maintain the enterprise architecture for the AMN.
This document is a working paper that may not be cited as representing formally approved NC3A opinions, conclusions or recommendations.

13. AMN Issues (1)
In 2010, there was no proper governance structure for the AMN as a whole.
Likewise there was no governance for the development of the AMN architecture.
The development of the architecture was primarily coordinated through the AWG consisting of the architects of the nations participating in the AMN.
This AWG usually received ad hoc tasking from different stakeholders involved in the development of the AMN without clear leadership defining the goals and deliverables upfront.
As a direct result of this missing governance several issues arose that had a negative impact on the architecture development work.

14. AMN Issues (2) These issues included:
Different expectations on content and usage of the architecture leading to ever changing requirements and deliverables
No enforcement of the architecture during implementation
Usage of different architecture frameworks
Usage of different architecture tools.
No interchange between the tools
In late 2010, a governance structure for the AMN was endorsed by Chief Of Staff SHAPE and the AWG was included in this governance structure. As a direct consequence, the situation regarding clearer expectations, deliverables and enforcement of architecture has been improved in 2011.
However, as the architects are sponsored by their respective nations they have to implement national policies and requirements, so that improvements regarding the usage of a single framework and tool are not to be expected.

15. Elements of Quality Architecture
Policy, Direction, Guidance
Single Architecture Framework
Architecture Exchange
Architecture Tools
Trained/Certified Architects
Enabling efficient and effective acquisition of hardware, software and services used by DoD in missions deliverables.
Unified Architecture Framework 15

16. Unified Architecture Framework NATO Architecture CaT Introduction
Mr. Walt Okon
Senior Architect Engineer
DoD Chief Information Officer Office
Architecture and Interoperability Directorate
10-11 September 2012

17. 4.1 ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS
4.1.2 Observations [Need for a Unified Architecture Framework]
Differences in DoDAF, MODAF, and NAF make it difficult to match the meta-model one to one.
some of the concepts in the frameworks have the same name but different definitions, i.e. different semantics.
Difficult to cross-walk the concepts between the different frameworks leads to miscommunication between architects using different frameworks.

18. Unified Architecture Framework
Unified Architecture Framework Strategic Direction
Move towards a Single Architecture Framework to achieve Interoperability
Development of the AMN architecture in 2010
Development of Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
Meeting at Object Management Group (OMG) March 2012
Ideas Meeting in June 2012
Plan for NATO CAT workshop 10/11 Sept 2012
Launchpad for Unified Architecture Framework (UAF)

19. Architecture Framework Convergence Vision
DoDAF
v1.5
1995
C4ISR F/W v1.0
v2.0
UAF
v2.05
2003
2007
JCIDS & NR-KPP
Applicability beyond C4ISR
Use-based
Integrated Architecture
2009
2010
2012
2014
v2.01
v2.02
v2.03
DoDAF/DNDAF
v2.04
1997
2016
2013
Joint Interoperability
DoDAF v1.0
C4ISR F/W v2.0
Net-centricity and SoA
SvcV views
26 AV/OV/SV/TV views
Linked to I&S policies
CADM 2.0
Fit-for-purpose
Data-centric architecture
Improved models of systems, services, capabilities, rules, measures
DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) based on IDEAS
Urgent CRs
52  1 XSD
IDEAS Foundation v1.0 fixes
TECHEDITS
DM2 OWL
Federal Common Approach
DNDAF Security Views
MODEM – DM2 Harmonization (IDEAS Domain Level)
NATO NAF
UDAF
Standardization, e.g.,
ISO
OMG
OASIS
Framework Objective:
Achieve a single integrated Architecture Framework for interoperability.
Achieve a US, Canada, and United Kingdom single Framework with a common Data Meta Model
Achieve alignment with the US Government Common Approach to Enterprise Architecture
19 June 2012 19

20. Vertical and Horizontal Complementary Emerging Standards
CA-FEA: The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architectures
UML: The Unified Modelling Language.
SysML: The Systems Modelling Language
SoaML: The Service Oriented Architecture language
NIEM: UML Profile for NIEM - provides a common method for defining XML schema conforming to the NIEM Specifications
IEPV: Information Exchange Policy Vocabulary – provides a method for defining the business rule for the aggregation, transformation, tagging and filtering data and information to a specified message format. ( supports STANAG 5525, replaces SOPES modeling paradigm)
Etc.

21. Federal, State, and Local Academia (Colleges and Universities)
Common Approach
National IT Architecture Movement in the United States across all Government Departments, Agencies, and Organizations
Federal, State, and Local
Industry
Academia (Colleges and Universities)

22. Common Approach Increasing Shared Approaches
To Information Technology Services
Implements Governance Process
Provides Authority to the Common Approach to a Unified Architecture Framework
Provides Standards Methods and Tools
Design and Implement Shared Services
Design architectures that facilitates interoperability and information-sharing

23. Why and When: Historical Development of AF’s.
DNDAF
v1.8
MODAF
Meta-Model (M3)
expressed using
UML Notation
NAF
v1.0
NAF
v3.1
2008
2005
2007
UAF/ MODEM
v1.0
MODAF
v1.0
MODAF
v1.1
MODAF
v1.2
DoDAF
V2.0
C4ISR
Architecture Framework v2.0
2015
2008
2009
2005
2007
1997
DoDAF
v1.0
DoDAF
v1.5
Scope of UAFP 1.0 :
C4ISR
Architecture Framework v1.0
Scope of UPDM 1.0
Approved Sept 2008
Scope of UPDM 2.0
ETC June 2011
2003
2007
1996

24. Discussion
Questions?