NATO Architecture Framework Metamodel v3.1 Surfaces

A definition/description of the NATO Architecture Framework Metamodel version 3.1 is now publicly available (the definition of the framework had previously disappeared from public view).

Currently only the document that specifies the metamodel is available - this is one part of the overall definition of the NATO Architecture Framework. The documentation that specifies the architecture views for version 3.1 isn’t yet available. The document that is available is Chapter 5 - NATO Architecture Framework Metamodel (NMM) and Architecture Data Exchange Specification (ADES) .

Without a complete document set and without a change record yet it’s hard to make an assessment, but ...

• NAF 3.1 now seems to be much closer to the MODAF 1.2.003 metamodel (MODAF is now at 1.2.004)
• The number of subviews has increased in total from 47 at 3.0 to 49 at 3.1 - with notable changes in the NATO Service-Oriented Views (NSOVs) which now align with MODAF
• the usage context of Resources (Capability Configuration, Artefact, Role, Post, Organisation, Software) can now be specified - this is a way of allowing exchange of models which were previously unexchangeable owing to the choices allowed by the NAF metamodel in typing a real world thing e.g. system vs platform vs artefact with the result that different architects would choose different stereotypes. The conflict in choice is still present but the usage context allows the architect to say, for example, this Platform is being used as a System. This is identical to MODAF from 1.2.003.
• any Resource is allowed to have a function now (NAF previously divided Resources up into ‘functional’ and ‘non-functional’
• any Resource can now interact with another Resource

Some niggles still remain e.g. the ‘system’ stereotype is really not a first class player and cannot itself contribute to capability or have parts which are other resource-like things - so no complex system or including the man with the machine as part of the system. This looks as though it has to be achieved using a Capability Configuration as a system and ignoring the fact that the System stereotype cannot represent a system. The new definition of System in v 3.1 doesn’t help - ‘The usage of an artefact as a System in a CapabilityConfiguration’ - as it doesn’t actually define what a system is.

Still the increased flexibility wrt Resources is a significant step forwards in representing the real world.

Update 11th November 2010
The definition for the NATO architecture framework seems to have disappeared again.

External Links

• Chapter 5 - NATO Architecture Framework Metamodel (NMM) and Architecture Data Exchange Specification (ADES)
• Architecture Framework Comparison - wiki on trak-community.org
• NAF 3.1 - wiki on trak-community.org

Comments

Logged-in site members can receive notifications of comments made on this article.

Comment on this article

Related Articles

Linked directly:

• Has the NATO Architecture Framework v3 Definition “Naffed-Off”?
• A System is a System, Right? Not if You’re Head-Modelling

Sharing tags:

• NATO AF v3.1 - Is It Now Time to Merge MODAF and the NATO AF? (25% )
• MODAF is Dead - Long Live ‘NAF’? (25% )
• ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture Description Released (13% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (13% )
• TRAK is a Finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards (13% )

«  Previous  TRAK LinkedIn Group Created     Tom Graves / Tetradian Commentary on TRAK  Next »