Section 1 is the Introduction to this volume. Section 2 .. These DoDAF data groups support both DoDAF viewpoints and the DoD key processes: the Joint. DoDAF Volume 2 describes the technical aspects of data collection presentation descriptions and DoDAF-described Models in Volumes 1 and 2 provide guidance DoDAFV is intended to be methodology agnostic. DoDAF Architecture Framework Version The Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is an architecture framework for . OV-1 High Level Operational Concept Graphic: High level graphical and .. DoDAF V · Printable version of DoDAF V Volume 1 · Printable version of DoDAF V Volume 2.
|Published (Last):||10 February 2007|
|PDF File Size:||12.32 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Department of Defense Architecture Framework DoDAF is an architecture framework for the United States Department of Defense DoD that codaf visualization infrastructure for specific stakeholders concerns through viewpoints organized by various views. These views are artifacts for visualizing, understanding, and assimilating the broad scope and complexities of an architecture description through tabularstructuralbehavioralontologicalpictorialtemporalgraphicalprobabilisticor alternative conceptual means.
This Architecture Framework is especially suited to large systems with complex integration and interoperability challenges, and it is apparently unique in its employment of “operational views”. These views offer overview and details aimed to specific stakeholders within their domain and in interaction with other domains in which the system will operate. The DoDAF provides a foundational framework for developing vokume representing architecture descriptions that ensure a common denominator for understanding, comparing, and integrating architectures across organizational, joint, and multinational boundaries.
It establishes data element definitions, rules, and relationships and a baseline set of products for consistent development of systems, integrated, or federated architectures. These architecture descriptions may volhme families of systems FoSsystems of systems SoSand net-centric capabilities for interoperating and interacting in the non-combat environment. DoD weapons and information technology system acquisitions are required to develop and document an enterprise architecture EA using the views prescribed in the DoDAF.
While it is clearly aimed at military systems, DoDAF has broad applicability across the private, public and voluntary sectors around the world, and represents one of a large number of systems architecture frameworks.
TRAK Community :: Wiki :: DODAF
It addressed the Deputy Dofaf of Defense directive that a DoD-wide effort be undertaken to define and develop a better means and process for ensuring that C4ISR capabilities were interoperable and met the needs of the warfighter.
It broadened the applicability of architecture tenets and practices to all Mission Areas rather than just the C4ISR community.
This document addressed usage, integrated architectures, DoD and Federal policies, value of architectures, architecture measures, DoD decision support processes, development techniques, analytical techniques, and the CADM v1. Definitions and Guidelines”, “II: Product Descriptions” and a “Deskbook”. In April the Version 1. The repository is defined by the common database schema Core Architecture Data Model 2.
The developing system must not only meet its internal data needs but also those of the operational framework into which it is set. The Capability Models describe capability taxonomy and capability evolution. A capability thread would equate to the specific activities, rules, and systems volumee are linked to that particular capability.
The vollume of capability, as defined by its Meta-model Data Group allows one to answer questions such as:. These products are organized under four views:. Each view didaf certain perspectives of an architecture as described below.
Only a subset of the full DoDAF viewset is usually created for each system development. The figure represents the information that links the operational view, systems and services view, and technical standards view. The three views and their interrelationships — driven by common volums data elements — provide the basis for deriving measures such as interoperability or performance, and for measuring the impact of the values of these metrics on operational mission and task effectiveness.
All view AV products provide overarching descriptions of the entire architecture and define the scope and context of the architecture. Operational View OV products provide voume of the tasks and activities, operational elements, and information exchanges required to accomplish DoD missions.
The OV provides textual and graphical representations of operational nodes and elements, assigned tasks and activities, and information flows between nodes.
It defines the type of information exchanged, the frequency of exchanges, the tasks and activities supported by these exchanges and the nature of the exchanges. Systems and services view SV is a set of graphical and textual products that describe systems and services and interconnections providing for, or supporting, DoD functions. SV products focus on specific physical systems with specific physical geographical locations.
The relationship between architecture data elements across the SV to the OV can be 2.0 as systems are procured and fielded to support organizations and their operations. Technical standards view TV products define technical standards, implementation conventions, business rules and criteria that govern the architecture.
Node is a complex, logical concept that is represented with more concrete concepts.
For the purposes of architecture development, the term integrated means that data required in more than one of the architectural models is commonly defined and understood across those models. Integrated architectures are a property or design principle for architectures at all levels: In simpler terms, integration is seen in the connection from items common among architecture products, where items shown in one architecture product such as sites used or systems interfaced or services provided should have the identical number, name, and meaning appear in related architecture product views.
There are many different approaches for creating an integrated architecture using DoDAF and for determining which products are required. The approach depends on the requirements and the expected results; i. As one example, the DoDAF v1. The sequence of the artifacts listed below gives a suggested order in which the artifacts could be developed. The actual sequence of view generation and their potential customization is a function of the application domain and the specific needs of the effort.
One concern about the DoDAF is how well these products meet actual stakeholder concerns for any given system of interest.
Otherwise there is the risk of producing products with no customers.
Department of Defense Architecture Framework
DoDAF generically describes in the 2.00 of the artifacts to be generated, but allows considerable sodaf regarding the specific formats and modeling techniques. The DoDAF deskbook provides examples in using traditional systems engineering and data engineering techniques, and secondly, UML format. In addition to graphical representation, there is typically a requirement to provide metadata to the Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository DITPR or other architectural repositories.
DoDAF has a meta-model underpinning the framework, defining the types of modelling elements that can be used in each view and the relationships between them.
Each of these three levels of the DM2 is important to a particular viewer of Departmental processes:. The DM2 defines architectural data elements and enables the integration and federation of Architectural Descriptions.
It establishes a basis for semantic i. In this manner, the DM2 supports the exchange and reuse of architectural information among JCAs, Components, and Federal and Coalition partners, thus facilitating the understanding and implementation of interoperability of processes and systems.
As the DM2 matures to meet the ongoing data requirements of process owners, decision makers, architects, and new technologies, it will evolve to a resource that more completely supports the requirements for architectural data, published in a consistently understandable way, and will enable greater ease for discovering, sharing, and reusing architectural data across organizational boundaries.
To facilitate the use of information at the data layer, the DoDAF describes a set of models for visualizing data through graphic, tabular, or textual means.
These views relate to stakeholder requirements for producing an Architectural Description. Department of Defense for developing enterprise architecture has been debated:. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. DoD Business Systems Modernization: Retrieved from ” https: United States Department of Defense information technology Enterprise architecture frameworks. Commons category link is on Wikidata. Views Read Edit View history.