=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1728/paper17
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1728/paper17.pdf
|volume=Vol-1728
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1728/paper17.pdf
There’s more than one way to skin a framework
Aurelijus Morkevicius
No Magic Europe, Savanoriu ave. 363, Kaunas LT - 51480, Lithuania
aurelijus.morkevicius@nomagic.com
Copyright © held by the author.
ABSTRACT which artifacts to deliver and in what sequence need to be
Today's architecture modeling environment suffers from answered. Every company deals with this issue differently.
being an effort to satisfy milestone decisions. Typically, the Organizations not complying with the standardized approach
architecture effort is separated from the Systems Engineering end up having differently structured models with different set
(SE) leading to a lack of traceability from the systems of views. It results in the loss of capability to interexchange,
requirements to the architecture resulting in interoperable loss of capability to communicate with other teams, overhead
systems. Due to the way that the Architecture models are in tool customization, and specific trainings need. Moreover,
created they generally consist of static diagrams and provide the models become impossible to integrate and reuse.
limited analytical support to the decision maker. Taking industry demand in account and addressing
Applying the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), changing landscape of defense architecture frameworks
previously known as Unified profile for MODAF and DoDAF (adoption of IDEAS ontology for DoDAF and MODAF), in
(UPDM), using a Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) September of 2013, a Request for Proposal for UPDM 3.0
approach moves the architecture modeling effort to one that is (later renamed to UAF) was created with the following preface:
an integral part of SE, helping the systems integrator to develop “The scope of UPDM V3.0 includes support for modeling
interoperable systems, with traceability to requirements and architectures, heretofore referred to as Architecture
across views, using one integrated architecture model that Descriptions (ADs) as defined in [ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011],
enables impact analysis, gap analysis, trade studies, simulations based on SysML v1.3, where such an AD consists of a
(what-if scenarios), and engineering analysis. collection of views and constituent models that represent a set
of UPDM-specified governing viewpoints (stakeholders’
Why UPDM? There are three major architecture concerns). The scope of UPDM v3.0 also includes mechanisms
frameworks used for defense architectures these days. It is for developing custom views to represent user-specified
Department of Defense architecture framework (DoDAF), viewpoints. The intent is to use the UPDM V3.0 to provide a
Ministry of Defense architecture framework (MODAF) and standard representation for AD support for Defense
NATO architecture framework (NAF). The practice of cross- Organizations. Another intent is to improve the ability to
organizational and cross-country projects within NATO exchange architecture data between related tools that are
countries showed a clear evidence that without unification and UML/SysML based and tools that are based on other standards.
interoperability, successful use of architectures is hard to
achieve. This was a motivator for UPDM to start its existence. The profile should include support for developing an AD
for a set of viewpoints such as project, operational, capability,
In March 2008, the UPDM Group was formed by members services, systems, standard, security and performance
of INCOSE and the OMG to create the Unified Profile for viewpoints, to include modeling and relating such elements as
DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) using UML/SysML. Members activities, nodes, system functions, ports, protocols, interfaces,
of the UPDM group were tool vendors, members of industry systems’ physical properties, and units of measure as defined
and representatives from the US DoD, British MOD, NATO, by the architecture frameworks DoDAF, MODAF/ MODEM,
Canadian and Swedish armed forces. Members of the DoDAF NAF, and the Security Viewpoint from DNDAF. In addition,
2.0 taskforce were heavily involved to ensure that DoDAF 2.0 the profile should allow for the modeling of related domain
and UPDM converged as much as possible. Tools supporting concepts such as DoD’s Doctrine, Organization, Training,
UPDM have been available for some time and are in use on Materiel, Leadership & education, Personnel, and Facilities
multiple government and industry projects. [DOTMLPF], the UK Ministry of Defence Lines of
Development [DLOD] elements which are: Training,
Why UAF? Six years passed and the period of paradigm
Equipment, Personnel, Information, Concepts and Doctrine,
shift from document-centric systems engineering approach to
Organization, Infrastructure, Logistics (TEPID OIL), and the
model-based systems engineering (MBSE) revealed gaps of
NATO equivalent.” (OMG, 2013).
MBSE approach. Where one of the gaps was no standardized
methodology available. Belief in Systems Modeling Since the issue of RFP, UPDM 3.0 group identified the list
Framework as a savior did not come true. Language by its of mandatory requirements:
definition provides syntax and a bit of semantics, however, not
pragmatics. To successfully apply language like SysML, Provide Domain Metamodel (Abstract Syntax and
questions like how to structure the model, what views to build, Constraints)
An Architecture Framework Profile Using SysML This presentation introduces to a brand new UAF and
explores how to leverage MBSE with architecture modeling in
Enable the Expression of Business Process Models an integrated and disciplined approach, enabling the
Architecture Modeling Support for Defense, Industry, modernization of complex systems (Systems of Systems, C4I
and government Organizations systems, and heavy industry systems).
Use of SysML Requirements Elements and Diagrams REFERENCES
Use of SysML Parametric Elements and Diagrams [1] Object Management Group (OMG), 2015, OMG Systems Modeling
Mapped to Measurements Language (OMG SysML™), V1.4, OMG Document Number:
formal/2015-06-03, URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.4/PDF,
Support for Data and Information Viewpoints: Accessed October, 2016
Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Schema Views and [2] Object Management Group (OMG), 2009, Unified Profile for the
Constituent Models Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the
Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), available at
Traceability Matrix for Backward Compatibility with http://www.omg.org/spec/UPDM/
UPDM 2.x [3] Object Management Group (OMG), 2009c, Unified Profile for
DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) 2.0 Request for Proposal), available at
Requirements Traceability Matrix to Supported Defense http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?c4i/2009-09-02.
Architecture Frameworks [4] Object Management Group (OMG), 2013, Unified Profile for
DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) 3.0 Request for Proposal), available at
Example Architecture Description http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc.cgi?c4i/2013-9-11.
[5] ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 - Systems and software engineering -
Matrix of Applicable Elements and Relationships for Architecture description. Iso.org. 2011-11-24. Accessed 2013.
Each Presentation Artifact [6] Mazeika, D., Morkevicius, A., and Aleksandraviciene, A., 2016, MBSE
driven approach for defining problem domain, 11th System of Systems
Model Interchange Engineering Conference (SoSE), Kongsberg, 2016, pp. 1-6.
Extensibility to Enable the Definition of Custom [7] Hause, M., Bleakley, G. and Morkevicius, A. 2016, Technology Update
on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). INCOSE International
Viewpoints Symposium, 26: 1145–1160.
And a list of optional requirements. Mentioning few of [8] Bleakley, G. and Morkevicius, A. 2016, Transitioning from UPDM to
the complete list: the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). Integrated Enterprise
Architecture 2016.
Viewpoints in Support of SoS Life Cycle Processes and
Analyses AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Human Systems Integration (HSI); Aurelijus Morkevicius is OMG® Certified UML, Systems
Modeling and BPM professional. Currently he is a Head of
Support of Security Domain. Solutions Department at No Magic Europe. He has the
expertise of model-based systems engineering (mostly based
The author of the presentation in behalf of other submitters on SysML) and defense architectures (DoDAF, MODAF,
of the UPDM 3.0 specification, believes that the UPDM 3.0 NAF). Aurelijus is working with companies such as General
submission meets the requirements listed above. For the reason Electric, Bombardier Transportation, Deutsche Bahn, ZF, Ford,
to support civil engineering needs, domains that are beyond the SIEMENS, BMW, etc. He is also a chairman and one of the
scope of defense frameworks and many other reasons outlined leading architects for the current OMG UAF (previously
in this paper, we have renamed UPDM 3.0 to UAF 1.0. known as UPDM) standard development group. In addition,
The Alpha version of UAF specification is accepted by Aurelijus is actively involved in educational activities. He
OMG in June 2016. The final version of UAF 1.0 specification received a PhD in Informatics Engineering from the Kaunas
very likely to be published in June 2017. University of Technology in 2013. Aurelijus is also a lecturer,
author of multiple articles, and conference speaker.