DoDAF Vocabulary Discovery Categories

1. What is the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2)? Conceptual Data Model (CDM) Concepts and concept relationships for core process stakeholders Logical Data Model (LDM) Reified and Formalized relationships For Architects Physical Exchange Schema (PES) XML encoding of LDM XMI / MOF Conversant (e.g., UPDM / SysML) Analysis Software DM2 PES XSD neutral implementation • For: • Integrators • Analysts • Developers EA / ITA Tools Authoritative Data Sources EA Domain Concepts Common Patterns Naming Set Theory Pedigree 4D Mereology M&S Tools EA DBMS’ Formal Ontology Foundation Extensionalist à 1st Order à 4 Dimensionalist Type Theoretic à 4D Mereotopologic Ontic Foundation Reporting Tools and Formats Federal, Coalition, and other EA exchanges • Data Exchange Specification • DoD EA COI Understandability • DoDAF Vocabulary • Discovery Categories • Mathematical rigor for integration and analysis Systems Viewpoint Articulate the legacy systems or independent systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for, or supporting, DoD functions All Viewpoint Overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all models Capability Viewpoint Articulate the capability requirement, delivery timing, and deployed capability Services Viewpoint Articulate the performers, activities, services, and their exchanges providing for, or supporting, DoD functions Operational Viewpoint Articulate operational scenarios, processes, activities & requirements Standards Viewpoint Articulate applicable Operational, Business, Technical, and Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts Project Viewpoint Describes the relationships between operational and capability requirements and the various projects being implemented; Details dependencies between capability management and the Defense Acquisition System process. Data and Information Viewpoint Articulate the data relationships and alignment structures in the architecture content DM2 CDM Sample DM2 LDM Diagram PES Neutral Format for EA Data Sharing Over Diverse Sources IDEAS Foundation Top-Level

2. Benefits of the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) A spectrum of information sharing Human-interpretable only Depends on near-universal mathematics and science that all learn very similarly Human-interpretable but with a predictable organized arrangement • More structure than structured text • Named records (or tables or classes) that are some sort of container for named fields (or attributes or columns).  • Associations and relationships, containers can point to information in other containers • Because of the labeling, you can tie the information together and query them.  A SQL query is just fundamentally a selection of the information.  • Referential integrity, data validation, cardinality rules, etc. • Applicable mathematics: • Set or type theory • Mereology • Mereotopology • 4 dimensionalism • Predicate calculus • Logics: modal, Kripke, … • Rules, operators: • Commutative, reflexive, transitive, … • Member-of, subset-of, part-of, … Create architectural descriptions Example Benefits of DM2: Submit for core process event • For example: • Queries for disconnects, inconsistencies, … • Specialized tools (e.g., cost / risk / performance / sustainment models, interoperability assessment) • Process simulators (e.g., comms flow, workflow, Petri nets, state machines) • Campaign, mission, engagement, etc. simulators All have high-sensitivity to mis-interpreted, erroneous, incomplete, incompatible, … data • Re-use of common patterns • Working Group reconciliation and analysis tool • Information pedigree model– reused existing patterns! • Design reification / requirements traceability – reused existing patterns! • Services description – reused existing patterns! • Semantic precision for interoperability and data exchange • Mathematical precision for automated algorithmic analysis • For example: • Capability solution proposal • Acquisition milestone review • Interoperability and supportability assessment checkpoints • Budget cycle (PPBE, IRB, CPM) • Ops Plan (contingency update cycle, actual) Get and integrate relevant datasets Analyze and assess The notional life-cycle of architectural description datasets Present Results for core process decisions

3. How to Implement the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) Join the DM2 Working Group! DM2 Description Documents • DM2 WG open to all • Collaboration Site • Business rules, e.g., • Aggregation and subtype rules • Coordination with many other groups, e.g., • Controlled vocabulary • Data models • Vendors and implementers • Software and systems organizations • Current baseline CDM, LDM, and PES files and documentation • Working copy • IDEAS model and profile • Folders with: • WG information • References and research • Tutorials and briefings • Next meeting info • Links to IDEAS & BORO 1. Outreach and Tutorial Onsites -- Mike.Wayson@osd.mil 2. 3. 4. Other ontology resources: IDEAS Group, BORO, Matthew West, Barry Smith / NCOR 5. 6. IDEAS Partial Bibliography • Berger, Peter L, and Thomas Luckmann; The Social Construction of Reality; Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York; 1966. • Casati, Roberto, and Achille C Varzi; Holes and other Superficialities; The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1995. • Casati, Roberto, and Achille C Varzi; Parts and Places: The Structure of Spatial Representation; The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1999. • Clark, Bowman L; “Individuals and Points”; Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 26; 1985. • Coquand, Thierry; “Type Theory”; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2006. • Davenport, Thomas H, and Laurence Prusak; Working Knowlege: How Organizations Manage What They Know; Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts; 1998. • Gilbert, Margaret; On Social Facts; Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1992. • Grenon, Pierre, and Barry Smith; “The Cornucopia of Formal-Ontological Relations”; Dialectica. Vol. 58; 2004 • Grenon, Pierre, and Barry Smith; “Snap and Span: Toward Dynamic Spatial Ontology”; Spatial Cognition and Computation; Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates, Inc, Leipzig, Germany. • Hacking, Ian; Historical Ontology; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 2002. • Hawley, Katherine; How Things Persist; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001 • Janssen, Terry, et al; A Multi- INT Sematic Reasoning Framework for Intelligence Analysis Support • Kay, Paul; “Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast”; Language; Vols. 47, number4; University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1971. • Kempson, Ruth M; Semantic Theory; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1977. • Levinson, Stephen C; Pragmatics; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1984. • Lyons, John; Language, Meaning, & Context; Fontana Paperbacks, Great Britain; 1981. • Nerlich, Graham; The Shape of Space; Second ed; Cambridge University Press,New York, NY; 1994. • Partee, Barbara H, Alice Ter Meulen, and Robert E Wall; Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Vol. 30; Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; 1990. • Partridge, Chris; Business Objects: Re-Engineering for Re-Use; The Boro Centre; 2005. • Potter, Michael; Set Theory and its Philosophy; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2004. • Pulman, S G; Word Meaning and Belief; Ed. James R Hurford and John A Hawkins; Croom Helm Linguistics Series; Billing & Sons Limited, Great Britain; 1983. • Sider, Theodore; Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001. • Simons, Peter; Parts: A Study in Ontology; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1987. • Smith, Barry; “Against Fantology”; Experience and Analysis; By M E Reicher and J C Marek; 2005. • Smith, Barry; “The Basic Tools of Formal Ontology”; Formal Ontology in Information Systems; IOS Press, Amsterdam; Frontiers in Artifitial Intellegence and Applications; 1998 • Smith, Barry; “Mereotopology: A Theory of Parts and Boundaries”; Data and Knowledge Engineering; Department of Philosophy, Buffalo, New York; 1996. • Smith, Barry, and David M Mark; “Do Mountains Exist? Toward an Ontology of Landforms.” Enviorment & Planning B (Planning and Design); National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Buffalo, New York; 2009. • Stein, Lynn Andrea; “Imagination and Situated Cognition”; Thinking about Android Epistemology; Ed. Kenneth M Ford, Clark Glymour, and Partick J Hayes; AAAI Press, Menlo Park; 2006.

4. DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) in a Nutshell Conceptual Data Model (CDM) Concepts and concept relationships for core process stakeholders Logical Data Model (LDM) Reified and Formalized relationships For Architects Physical Exchange Schema (PES) XML encoding of LDM XMI / MOF Conversant (e.g., UPDM / SysML) Analysis Software DM2 PES XSD neutral implementation • For: • Integrators • Analysts • Developers EA / ITA Tools Authoritative Data Sources EA Domain Concepts Common Patterns Naming Set Theory 4D Mereology Pedigree M&S Tools EA DBMS’ Formal Ontology Foundation Extensionalist à 1st Order à 4 Dimensionalist Type Theoretic à 4D Mereotopologic Ontic Foundation Reporting Tools and Formats Federal, Coalition, and other EA exchanges DM2 Purpose and Role: • DoDAF Vocabulary • Discovery Categories • Data Exchange Specification • DoD EA COI Understandability • Mathematical rigor for integration and analysis DoDAF 2.0 Conformance: DM2 PES -- the Neutral Format for EA Data Sharing Over Diverse Sources DM2 CDM Example of IDEAS Foundation Benefits: • Re-use of common patterns • Working Group reconciliation and analysis tool • Information pedigree model– reused existing patterns! • Design reification / requirements traceability – reused existing patterns! • Services description – reused existing patterns! • Semantic precision for interoperability and data exchange • Mathematical precision for automated algorithmic analysis DM2 Resources: DM2 Working Group – open to all!DM2 Collaboration Site – www.silverbulletinc.com/dm2DM2 Description Documents and BriefingsOutreach and Tutorial Onsites – Mike.Wayson@osd.milIDEAS Partial BibliographyOther ontology resources: IDEAS Group, BORO, Matthew West, Barry Smith / NCOR