DoDAF-DM2 WG Orientation Brief

1. DoDAF-DM2 WGOrientation Brief 13 April 2011 DoDAF Development Team

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. Lay of DoDAF Land • Model (view) specifications • Operational • Capabilities • Services • Systems • Data and Information • Standards • Projects • 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. Views

5. Views

6. Views

7. Views

8. Views

9. Conceptual Level of DM2 is Simple anything can have Measures Condition Guidance is-performable-under Rule Capability Activity constrains Standard Agreement requires-ability-to-perform Backup slide has term definitions has consumes-and-produces is-realized-by is-performed-by achieves-desired-effect (a state of a resource) Project is-the-goal-of Resource describes-something Information • 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 Performer Data Materiel System Organization Location is-at GeoPolitical Service PersonRole is-part-of

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 Extent A geospatial extent whose boundaries are by declaration or agreement by political parties.

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

12. DoDAF-DM2 WG history • DoDAF 2.0 development in 2008-2009 was done via 3 technical working groups: • Presentation • Methods • Data • Data TWG methodology during DoDAF 2.0 development • Top-down from DoD’s 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 CADM’s ~ 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. Top-Down / Bottom-Up Development DoD Core Process Information Requirements Collection JCIDS Process Information Requirements PPBE Process Information Requirements Ops Planning Process Information Requirements DAS Process Information Requirements CPM Process Information Requirements SE Process Information Requirements DoDAF 2.0: • Conceptual Data Model (Vol I) • Logical Data Model (Vol II) • Physical Exchange Model (Vol III) UCORE Data Model Development COI Coordination COI1 COIn Existing / Emerging Schema, Models, and Databases

14. 3. Make a pass on the “Core” Terms 1. Overviews of Models 2. Collect the terms 1 = Core, critical to process or very common in architectures 2 = Derived or less common 3 = TBD 4 = TBD 5 = TBD 5 4 3 2 1 5. Group related terms 4. Gather authoritative definitions for “Core” terms 7. Relationships 6. Proposed definitions (+rationale, examples, and aliases) 8. Relationship Types 12/3 Strawman – list of important or recurring “core” words/terms/concepts with source definition(s) 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", ...) • 3/3 • CDM version 0.1 • Concepts (defined) • Relationships (some typing, e.g., super/sub, cardinality) Conceptual Data Model Process

15. Sources Models CADM 1.5 IDEAS UPDM BMM Hay/Zachman ASM CRIS Conceptual CADM in DoDAF 1.0 / prototype CADM 2.0 M3 NAF Meta Model DoI Meta Model JC3IEDM GML UCORE 1.1 GEIA 927 AP233 SUMO and ISO 15926 (via IDEAS) FEA Reference Models JFCOM JACAE Definitions IEEE ISO W3C OMG EIA DODD & DODI JCS Pubs, especially CJCSI's Models in the Source_Candidates_071115.ppt DoDAF Other frameworks: Zachman, MODAF, TOGAF, NAF, ... FEA BMM Worknet Wikipedia English dictionaries DoDAF Glossary

16. Definition Phase Example 1

17. WG Business Rules Essential for Broad Community Consensus

18. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

19. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

20. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

21. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

22. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT

23. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

24. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

25. DoDAF Must Relate to Core Processes DRAFT DRAFT

26. DoDAF-DM2 WG Objectives

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

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

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. DoDAF-DM2 WG Change Request Processing DRAFT DRAFT

32. DoDAF CR Detailed Processing DRAFT DRAFT

33. DM2 CR Detailed Processing DRAFT DRAFT

34. DoDAF-DM2 Version Process DRAFT

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. DoDAF-DM2 WG Challenges • 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 • Separating material that needs to be controlled from that that doesn’t • 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 • 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. DoDAF-DM2 WG Way Ahead • ASRG & FAC Governance to be updated • FAC Component reps formal tasker soon to be issued • Version tempo to slow to annual or semi-annual • Versions will go through review by Components by formal tasker • Predicted future CR sources: • Coordination with FEAF, JARM, and CUDEAF • Core process initiatives, e.g., IT Acquisition Reform

38. DoD Architectures COI WG is being considered DRAFT • 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. Welcome!We look forward to your participation.