Defense architecture frameworks like DoDAF, MoDAF or NAF (UPDM) are widely accepted standards, not only in defense-related organizations. Because of different frameworks and vendor-specific implementations of the modeling language, interoperability isn´t always achieved easily and information exchange is hardly possible between organizations and partners.The US Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) provides the structure for a specific stakeholder concern through different viewpoints. Based on DoDAF other frameworks have been derived such as the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) and UK Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework (MoDAF).

The UPDM (Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF) is an initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG) to standardize the UML and SysML usage for these defense architecture frameworks.

Although the meta-models and views are standardized, the tool vendors need to map those meta-models into their own tool-specific modeling languages. In Sparx® Enterprise Architect the standards are followed closely (it is a leading UML modeling tool…). Software AG, for instance, maps the DoDAF/NAF framework into their ARIS® modeling language.

Sparx® Enterprise Architect is the platform for the OMG’s reference implementation of the UPDM using the UML and SysML profiles. The ARIS® implementation, however, is a bit different due to a different modeling language. To overcome this language divide, a set of injective mapping rules needs to be applied. Here is the architect’s suggestion for rule set governing the transformation from Sparx® Enterprise Architect to ARIS® models and entities:

Mapping between the UPDM OV-4 viewpoint and the ARIS DoDAF implementation of organizational charts
Mapping between the UPDM OV-4 viewpoint and the ARIS DoDAF implementation of an org chart

Mapping between the UPDM OV-4 viewpoint and the ARIS® DoDAF implementation of an org chart.

  • Shape stereotypes <-> label prefixes
  • Connection stereotypes <-> connection labels and appearance
  • Connection tags <-> note shapes

For the following transformation of an SV-4 viewpoint model to an ARIS® function tree (which is their representation), an additional rule is applied:

  • Shape types <-> Shape colors

In this way, the limitation of the ARIS® implementation in terms of a lack of specific element types used for the UPDM SV-4 view can be overcome:

Mapping between UPDM OV-4 viewpoint and ARIS DoDASF 2.0 organizational chart
Mapping between the UPDM SV-4 functionality description and ARIS DoDAF 2.0 function tree

Mapping between the UPDM SV-4 functionality description and ARIS DoDAF 2.0 function tree.

These examples show nicely how injective mapping rules can be used to map viewpoints describing the same context of information in quite different modeling language implementations found in different architecture tools.

Overcome limitations in vendor-specific defense framework implementations
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Tagged on:                     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *