2. Modeling Space Data Systems Architectures 6 Nov 2008 Peter Shames NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

3. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 2 Topics Why views of system architectures? Challenges of space system architectures –Existing terrestrial approaches must be adapted for space –Need a common architecture methodology and information model –Need appropriate set of viewpoints for the space domain Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS) –Description of set of viewpoints –Extension into Space Systems in general –Examples of use Relationship to other methods –DoDAF and others –SysML –Adding RASDS viewpoints to SysML

4. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 3 What is System Architecture and … System architectures are complex, multi-faceted things –Hardware structures –Software elements –Functional composition –Control and data flows –Environment and interactions –Organizational interfaces & contracts –End-to-end communications paths –Science, user, & operator interfaces –And don’t forget the interactions among these, electrical, power, thermal, dynamic, etc, etc Where do you “stand” to get a view of all this?

5. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 4 … why Views? As with any programming or system engineering activity … –Breaking a problem into pieces makes it more manageable –Smaller pieces are easier to work with –Logical coherence within a “piece” better supports reasoning about behavior and properties Views are perspectives on an architecture, intended to give us useful leverage in understanding and analyzing the system –But, we need to be clear about what is represented in any given viewpoint, and –We also need to model the relationships among the elements shown in different views … –A structural element may also act as an electrical ground plane and a thermal shield So how to we arrive at a useful set of views and … –How does this relate to the current methods that are in vogue, I.e. SysML and DoDAF?

6. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 5 Architecting and Engineering Space Systems is Hard Many Stakeholders –Organizations (NASA, international partners, contractors) –Competing requirements (cost, schedule, risk, science, technology, survivability, maintainability, buildability) Many different system aspects –Logical (functionality, information, control) –Physical (hardware, software, environment) –Interoperability and cross support –Science & operational capabilities –Autonomous and human mediated operations Long and complex system (of systems) lifecycle –Development phases Requirements, design, implement, I&T, V&V Operations and sustaining –Cradle to grave lifecycle –Mission view vs infrastructure view …motion

7. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 6 System Architecture Model Objectives Provide clear & unambiguous views of the design Show relationship of design to requirements and driving scenarios Separate design concerns in the model to maintain degrees of freedom to do trades Detail the model & views to the level appropriate for further systems engineering, support evolving design Enable concurrent design of spacecraft, ground systems, science operations, control systems, and components Establish system engineering (SE) controls over the allocations and interfaces Provide executable models of the interactions (future) Even document driven design processes benefit from clear presentation of architectural elements and design. Required tool capabilities and MBE elements shown like this.

8. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 7 Existing System Architecture Methods Inadequate for Space Existing methods tacitly assume modeled objects are fixed in space and are usually in continuous and instantaneous communication –DoDAF, RM-ODP, TOGAF, Zachman, Krutchen 4+1, … Space systems tend to violate these assumptions –Therefore, any of these modeling methodologies must be adapted to describe space systems Viewpoints must accommodate complex logical and physical interactions –UML, SysML provide design diagrams, but do not directly support the necessary viewpoints –DoDAF has only three “views” and is intended to support system acquisition, not really design

9. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 8 RM-ODP & RASDS Characteristics The specification of a complete system in terms of viewpoints. The use of a common object model for the specification of the system from every viewpoint. The use of views to tailor user or domain specific analyses of the system. The definition of a modeling infrastructure that provides support services for system applications, hiding the complexity and problems of defining mission specific models. The definition of a set of common transformation functions that provide general services needed during the design and development of space systems. A framework for the evaluation of conformance of models and designs based on conformance points.

10. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 9 Space Data System Several Architectural Viewpoints Enterprise Business Concerns Organizational perspective Connectivity Physical Concerns Node & Link perspective Functional Computational Concerns Functional composition Information Data Concerns Relationships and transformations Communications Protocol Concerns Communications stack perspective Derived from: RM-ODP, ISO 10746 Largely compliant with IEEE 1471-2000

11. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 10 RASDS Semantic Information Model Derivation Process RASDS as Architectural Framework * Connectivity Viewpoint Connectivity Components & connectors Physics of Motion End to End View External Forces Performance Enterprise Viewpoint Organizations People Use Case- Scenarios Contracts/Agreeme nts * Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS) ** Reference Model Open Distributed Processing (RMODP, ISO 10746 spec) Functional Viewpoint Functional Structure Functional Behavior & interfaces End to End View Cross Support Service Communications Viewpoint Protocols & comm standards End to end Information Transfer Mechanisms Cross Support Services Information Viewpoint Information & information management Scenarios End to End View Augment to Capture: Structure Power Mass Thermal Orbit Propulsion Engineering Viewpoint System Design & Construction Functional allocation Distribution of functions and trade-offs Development Validation & verification Based on RMODP** Augment to Capture: Mission Design & Drivers Requirements Cost Enterprise Risks Extended by: MBED Project, Shames & Skipper

12. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 11 RASDS Top Level Object Ontology Function Behavior Interfaces Constraints Logical structure Link Type Attributes Communication Protocol stack Standards Organization Requirements Objectives Goals Scenarios Mission FulfilledBy Fulfills IsAllocatedTo ComposedOf ContainsInstances Produces Consumes ConnectVia ConnectToPort Uses ProvidesService AssociatedWith ImplementedOn Information Data Metadata Rules Owns/Operates Node Type Attributes Ports Calls Environment Physical Environs Affects Location Attributes Perspective (Viewpoint) Defines Objects Defines Rules Exposes Concerns Defines Relations

13. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 12 Space Data System Architectural Notation Object Object with Interface Object Encapsulation Node (physical location) Logical Link Space Link (rf or optical) Physical Link Management Service External Concerns Node Encapsulation (physical aggregation)

14. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 13 Mars Exploration Program Example Enterprise View Mars Exploration Program Federation MSL Proj MRO Ops MMOService ZDSMS MRO Proj NASA/ JPL S/C Contractor MEx Proj Prog S ExoMars Prog ESA Operations Agreements Cross- Support Agreements Enterprise Concerns: Requirements Objectives Roles Policies Activities Configuration Contracts / agreements Lifecycle / Phases Instr S Instrument Integration Science PI Org Tracking Agreements ICDs

15. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 14 Functional View Example Functional Objects & Interactions Mission Planning Mission Analysis Spacecraft Analysis Monitor & Control Directive Generation Data Acquisition Orbit Determ Tracking Radiometric Data Collect LT Data Repository Data Repository Directive Execution Directive Management Functional Concerns: Behaviors Interactions Interfaces Constraints

16. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 15 Connectivity View Nodes & Links Mission Planning Computer Spacecraft Control Computer Space Link Internet Ground Tracking Station Command & Data Handling Computer ACS Computer S/C Bus Science Instrument Spacecraft Transceiver Connectivity Concerns: Distribution Communication Physical Environment Behaviors Constraints Configuration SPACECRAFT

17. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 16 Connectivity View Mapping Functional Elements to Nodes Science Spacecraft Science Institute S/C Control Center Tracking Station Mission Planning Directive Generation LT Data Repository (Archive) Data Repository Mission Analysis Spacecraft Analysis Monitor & Control Orbit Determ Radiometric Data Collect Directive Management Data Repository Tracking Traj Design Directive Generation Comm Mgmt Monitor & Control Data Acquisition Tracking Radiometric Data Collect Data Repository Directive Execution Attitude Control Comm Mgmt Allocation View: Implemented Functions End to End Behavior Performance Throughput Trade studies

18. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 17 Communications Viewpoint Protocol Objects End-To-End Command Processing Command Generation Command Execution TC Space Data Link SLE CLTU Packet (Relay) TC Space Data Link RF Generation Commands TCP/ IP PPP SLE CLTU TCP/ IP PPP TC Space Data Link (Relay) RF Generation Tracking Station C&DH GROUND SYSTEM Onboard Physical Onboard Physical Packet Payload TCP/ IP SPACECRAFT Packet Frame Packet Communications Concerns: Standards Interfaces Protocols Technology Interoperability Suitability

19. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 18 MSL End-End Network Architecture Example Connectivity Overview Relay Command Generation Space Data Link Delivery DSN File Prep MRO Control Center C&DH Payload MSL Rover SSR Instr Command Execution Rover Command Execution Electra - lite Relay Command Execution Cmnd File Processing C&DH Relay MRO Spacecraft Large SSR File Mgmt File Handling Electra In-situ delivery In-situ Delivery SDST XMTR Link Prep Space Link Processing Deep Space Link Proximate Link Rover Command Generation MSL Planning and Control Center File Xfer Cmnd Integ Team Overlay MSL MRO DSMS Contractor Data Flow Overlay Uplink Downlink Relaying Performance Overlay Processor speed CPU requirements Link capacities Throughput Storage capacities

20. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 19 Relationship to Other Methods Comparison table of architecture methods –RASDS, DoDAF, Krutchen, Zachman Brief discussion of DoDAF –DoDAF & RASDS Elements –DoDAF Products & RASDS Views (more in backup) SysML use for system architecture –Diagram types –Mapping to RASDS

21. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 20 Comparison of Architecture Methods Derived from: Maier, ANSI/IEEE 1471 and System Engineering RASDSRM-ODPDoDAFKrutchen 4+1Zachman Enterprise Operational(RUP-SE adds this) People FunctionalComputationalSystemLogicalFunction ConnectivityEngineering (node & alloc, not environment & interactions) System (not environment & interactions) Process & Physical (not environment & interactions) Network (not environment & interactions) Information Operational & System Process (subset)Data CommunicationsTechnical (not protocol stacks & EEIS) System (partial) & Technical (standards only) OperationalScenariosMotivation & Time Engineering (development) Development

22. Functional Object NodeLink Information Object Performs Owns Connects Generates or consumes Is exchanged over Enterprise Object Interacts over Hosts Operational Node System Function System Node System Data Performs Is implemented by Hosts Generates or consumes Is exchanged between Operational Activity Owns DoDAF (Notional) RASDS (Notional) Functional Object (System) Node Link Information Object Performs Owns Connects Generates or consumes Is exchanged over Ent Obj / Ops Node Interacts over Hosts System Function System Data Performs Is implemented by Hosts Generates or consumes Is exchanged between Operational Activity Protocols Implemented by “RAS-DAF”

23. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 22 SysML Diagram Types Source: SysML Partners

24. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 23 Mapping RASDS into SysML No simple one for one mapping RASDS uses Viewpoints to expose different concerns of a single system SysML uses specific diagrams to capture system structure, behavior, parameters and requirements –Several SysML diagrams, focused on different object classes, may be usefully applied to any given RASDS Viewpoint Extended SysML Views may be used to define the relationships between Viewpoints and Diagrams SysML methods & tools can support more accurate fine grained modeling of structure, relationships and behavior than was expected of RASDS But, SysML needs to be adapted, via a profile or some other method, to guide use of appropriate views

25. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 24 Enterprise –Organizational structure & behavior diagrams –Use case, activity, and sequence diagrams –Requirements & constraints for rules, policies & agreements Connectivity –Physical structure, composition, behavior & class diagrams –Parametric diagram for physical link & environment characterization Functional –Logical structure, behavior & class diagrams –Activity, state chart, parametric, & timing diagrams Informational –Information class & parametric diagrams Communication –Protocol structure & behavior diagrams –State machine, sequence, activity & timing diagrams Mapping RASDS into SysML

26. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 25 Enterprise View Using SysML Use Case Diagram > Enterprise: Use Case Mars Exploration Program Federation Mission A Agency ABC GTN B Mission Q Instr C Agency QRS Instrument Integration Operations Contract > Cross Support Agreement > Service Operations Team > Science Team > Science Team > Instrument Team > Relay Service A > TT&C Service B Mission Operations Team >

27. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 26 Connectivity View (Nodes & Links) Using SysML Components (Spacecraft) Derived from: SysML Partners sciInstr : scienceInstrumentCDH : CmdDataHandlingSystem dl : DownLink Spacecraft s : Sensor ic : InstrControl ap : Aperture ap: Mechanical ObsFin Port DataDonePort dm : DataManager ecu : Execution Control Unit oc : ObsControl InstrCmnd Port TelemPort TakeObs SensorData RFAntenna ul : UpLink TeleCmndPort CmndIn Port

28. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 27 Connectivity View (Nodes & Links) Using SysML Components (MOS & TT&C Systems) TT&C : TrackTelemCommandMOS : MissionOpsSystem TM : Telemetry TC : Telecommand Pt : Pointing Ant: Mechanical TelemDonePort dm : DataManager MOP : Mission OpsPlanning SC : SendCmnd Cmnd Port Telem Port PointingData TelemData RF Ant Tele Cmnd Port ObsReq Port ul : UpLink dl : DownLink CmndData Re Trans Port DL Port UL Port

29. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 28 Connectivity View (Composition) Using SysML Components Global structure inherited by each kind of Spacecraft … … and constrained for each kind RF: link [X-band] RF: link [KaBand]

30. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 29 Functional View Using SysML Activity Diagram Showing component allocations (optional) Spacecraft Ground System Instrument S/C Control Mission Ops Prepare Cmnd Accept Data Finish ObsSeq Take Obs plannedObs Instr Cmnd Plan ObsSeq TT&C Network Xmit Cmnd Recv Data Transmit Data Store Data Execute Cmnd retransReq readyCmnd Recv Cmnd obsComplete retransDataReq

31. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 30 Informational View Using SysML Class Diagram Reusable, refinable information structure : > InstrCmndFile 1..* 1 describes Global representation inherited by each kind of Information Object Derived from: SysML Partners > InstrCmndList > InstrCmnd 1..* > InstrCmndMetaData > InstrCmndSemantics > InstrCmndStructure

32. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 31 Derived from: SysML Partners Communication View (Protocol Objects) Using SysML Component Diagram TC : TeleCmnd > LL: LinkLayer SC : SpaceCraft CmndData:RF > PL: PhysLayer > IP: InternetLayer > TP: TransportLayer CmndIn Port SC : SendCmnd > LL: LinkLayer MOS : MissionOpsSystem > PL: PhysLayer > IP: InternetLayer > TP: TransportLayer Cmnd Port ECU : Execution Control Unit MOP : Mission OpsPlanning RF: link [Xband] >

33. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 32 Communication View Using SysML State Machine Diagram > TP: TransportLayer Derived from: SysML Partners Idle Waiting Sending evSend / transmitCount=0 tm(Wait Time) [transmitCount<LIMIT] evDoneSend / ++transmitCount evACK[isValid] tm(Wait Time) Throw(“Unable to Send”) Protocol specifications inherited by each instance of Protocol Objects

34. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 33 Developing Useful Viewpoints Viewpoint Specification Examples –IEEE 1471 & RASDS Approach –Stakeholders, concerns, modeling language, consistency & completeness Extensions needed for Space System MBE –May need extended Physical (Connectivity) view –May need other views (Service)

35. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 34 Viewpoint Elements - Functional Example Stakeholders: system engineers, acquirers, developers, users, and maintainers Concerns: the functions that are required for the system to meet its requirements and execute its scenarios Modeling Language: functional objects and relationships, interfaces, behaviors, constraints Consistency & Completeness Methods: every requirement maps to at least one function, no requirement is not mapped to a function, no function is not mapped to a requirement, and there is structural data and control flow consistency All five RASDS viewpoint elements Are documented in CCSDS 311.0-M-1

36. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 35 Typical Functional Views Functional Dataflow view – An abstract view that describes the functional elements in the system, their interactions, behavior, provided services, constraints and data flows among them. Defines which functions the system is capable of performing, regardless of how these functions are actually implemented. Functional Control view – Describes the control flows and interactions among functional elements within the system. Includes overall system control interactions, interactions between control elements and sensor / effector elements and management interactions.

37. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 36 Viewpoint Elements - Connectivity Example Stakeholders: system engineers, sub-system engineers, acquirers, developers, operators, users, and maintainers Concerns: implemented functions, allocation to the physical structures of the system, their connections, and how they interact with the environment Modeling Language: engineering objects (S/W or H/W), physical objects (nodes) and their connections (links), physical behavior, motion and interactions, the environment, constraints Consistency & Completeness Methods: every functional element maps to at least one physical element, no functional element is not mapped, no physical element is not mapped to a function, and there is structural integrity and consistency

38. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 37 Typical Connectivity (& Physical) Views Data System view – Describes instruments, computers, and data storage components, their data system attributes and the communications connectors (busses, networks, point to point links) that are used in the system. Telecomm view – Describes the telecomm components (antenna, transceiver), their attributes and their connectors (RF or optical links). Navigation view – Describes the motion of the major elements of the system (trajectory, path, orbit), including their interaction with external elements and forces that are outside of the control of the system, but that must be modeled with it to understand system behavior (planets, asteroids, solar pressure, gravity) Structural view – Describes the structural components in the system (s/c bus, struts, panels, articulation), their physical attributes and connectors, along with the relevant structural aspects of other components (mass, stiffness, attachment) Thermal view – Describes the active and passive thermal components in the system (radiators, coolers, vents) and their connectors (physical and free space radiation) and attributes, along with the thermal properties of other components (i.e. instruments as thermal sources (or sinks), antennas or solar panels as sun shade) Power view – Describes the active and passive power components in the system (solar panels, batteries, RTGs) within the system and their connectors, along with the power properties of other components (data system and propulsion elements as power sinks and structural panels as grounding plane) Propulsion view – Describes the active and passive propulsion components in the system (thrusters, gyros, motors, wheels) within the system and their connectors, along with the propulsive properties of other components Connectivity Views use different subsets of the same physical objects, but are examined from different perspectives and use different attributes. Space System MBE may require other views and object types.

39. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 38 Connectivity (& Physical) Viewpoint - Component / Connector (Node / Link) Examples Data System –Components (CPU, instruments, SSR) –Connectors (network, data bus, serial lines, backplane) Telecomm –Components (transmitter, receiver, antenna) –Connectors (RF link, optical link, waveguide) Structural –Components (S/C bus, physical link, arm, struct attrib of other components) –Connectors (joint, bolt (incl explosive), weld) Power –Components (solar panel, battery, RTG, switches, power attrib of other components) –Connectors (power bus) Thermal –Components (cooler, heater, thermal attrib of other components) –Connectors (heat pipe, duct, free space radiation) Propulsion –Components (motor, wheel, thruster) –Connectors (contact patch, gravity )

40. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 39 Summary Many different methods can be used to model space system and data system architectures RASDS / IEEE 1471 concepts of viewpoints and related formal methods can be directly used to support space data system designs –Several missions have used RASDS successfully –An approach for adapting SysML to add useful views has been presented –This is aligned with latest JPL SE Practices, Doc 75012 (see backup) Even in a “document driven” process adopting a useful set of views is valuable –Word & PowerPoint However, adoption of a formalized modeling environment based on SysML will aid development of complex system architectures –Templates or profiles supported by the tools themselves (and adaptable) –Links and relationships managed by tools –Formalized models, integrated requirements & design Next Steps: Develop an architecture profile for use at JPL –Use SysML tool in combination with RASDS or adapted views –Document a basic practice for doing model based design in this environment –Use the approach & tool on a real project

41. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 40 BACKUP

42. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 41 JPL SE Practices, Doc 75012 Table 3. Architectural Viewpoints 1 Programmatic –a. Purpose, scope, and objectives –b. Organization, including the work breakdown structure... 2 Functional –a. Functional decomposition of the system into objects that interact at interfaces –b. Behavior of the functional elements and their functional relationships... 3 Physical –a. The physical decomposition of the space system into components that interact across connectors. –b. The physical aspects of the space system and the external environment within which it operates, the physical behavior (and motion) of the components relative to the environment... 4 Information –a. Semantics of the information and the information processing performed –b. Information managed by the space system and the structure, content, semantics, type, and relationships among the data used within the system... 5 Software Engineering –a. Allocation of abstract functions to selected physical components of the system. –b. Selection of approach for designing and implementing software components. –c. Design of control systems, consideration of subsysteminteractions, control system elements, and elements of system under control... 6 Technical Infrastructure and Standards –a. Selection of technology and standards to develop the space system. –b. Standards and technologies chosen to provide the communications, processing, functionality and presentation of information in the space system... 7 Lifecycle Phases –a. Development –b. Integration –c. Assembly, test, and launch operations (ATLO) [verification and validation (V&V)]...

43. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 42 Definitions of DoDAF Views

44. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 43 DoDAF Elements and Their Relationships (Partial and not Exact) Operational Node System Function System Node System Data Performs Is Implemented By Hosts Generates or Consumes Is Exchanged Between Operational Activity Owns Source: Takahiro Yamada, SAWG Chair

45. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 44 Correspondence Between RASDS and DoDAF Elements DoDAF ElementsRASDS Elements Operational Nodes (OV-2)Enterprise Objects (EV) Needlines (OV-2)Enterprise Interactions (EV) Information Elements (OV-3)Information Objects (IV) Operational Activities (OV-5)Enterprise Operations (EV) Systems Nodes (SV-1)Nodes (CV) Systems (SV-1)Sub-nodes (CV) System Interfaces (SV-1)Links (CV) Key Interface (SV-1)Cross-support interface (CV) System Functions (SV-4)Functional Objects (FV) System Data (SV-6)Information Objects (IV) Source: Takahiro Yamada, SAWG Chair

46. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 45 Correspondence Between RASDS and DoDAF Views (1/2) DODAF View and ProductRASDS Viewpoint Overview and Summary Information (AV-1)None Integrated Dictionary (AV-2)None High-Level Operational Concept Graphic (OV-1)None Operational Node ConnectivityDescription (OV-2)Enterprise Viewpoint Operational Information Exchange Matrix (OV-3)Information Viewpoint Organizational Relationships Chart (OV-4)Enterprise Viewpoint Operational Activity Model (OV-5)Enterprise Viewpoint Operational Rules Model, etc (OV-6)None Logical Data Model (OV-7)Information Viewpoint Systems Interface Description (SV-1)Connectivity Viewpoint Systems Communications Description (SV-2)Comm. Viewpoint Systems-Systems Matrix (SV-3)None Source: Takahiro Yamada, SAWG Chair

47. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 46 Correspondence Between RASDS and DoDAF Views (2/2) DODAF View and ProductRASDS View Systems Functionality Description (SV-4)Functional Viewpoint Operational Activity to Systems Functionality Traceability Matrix (SV-5) Relationships defined Systems Data Exchange Matrix (SV-6)Information Viewpoint Systems Performance Parameters Matrix (SV-7)Connectivity Viewpoint Systems Evolution Description (SV-8)None Systems Technology Forecasts (SV-9)None Systems Functionality and Timing Descriptions (SV-10) None Physical Schema (SV-11)Information View Technical Standards Profile (TV-1)(partially, Comm. Viewpoint) Technical Standards Forecast (TV-2)None Source: Takahiro Yamada, SAWG Chair

48. 6 Nov 2008JPL Modelling Early Adopters (MEA)PS 47 Object Unified Object Representation Core Functions What the object does External Interfaces: How external elements are controlled Management Interfaces: How objects are configured controlled, and reported upon Service Interfaces: How services are requested & supplied Concerns: Issues Resources Policies

49. Directive Generation Command Execution Directive Execution Command Schema & Structure Definition Operations Plan Schema & Structure Definition Information Objects Relationship to Functional View Instantiation Observation Plans Instrument Commands S/C Commands S/C Event Plans Information Objects are exchanged among Functional Objects Abstract Data Architecture Meta-models Data Models Actual Data Objects Information Object Data Object Representation Information Semantic Information Structure Information 1..n Instantiation Information Object Data Object Representation Information Semantic Information Structure Information 1..n Operation Plans Commands Realization Information Concerns: Structure Semantics Relationships Permanence Rules