Listing all articles in The Residual World under the category 'NAF' :

Integrated EA Conference 2011 - Call for Presentations

by Nic Plum on Friday 20 August, 2010 - 00:33 GMT

Posted in Architecture FrameworkDNDAFDODAFMODAFNAFTRAKNews

Tags: committeeconferenceintegrated ealondon

A tweet refers to the Integrated EA website reminding folks to get papers in for the Integrated EA 2011 conference:

The call for presentations is now out. The key themes for IEA 2011 are:

  • Practical success stories
  • New and innovative approaches
  • Expectations and experiences from a business perspective
  • Making the most of EA modelling tools
  • Enterprise Ontologies
  • Managing risk and cost with an EA approach
  • International updates
  • EA in business change programmes
  • EA Standards
  • Best practice from industries other than defence and Government

How to submit:

Submissions should be emailed to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) in the following format:

  • Session Title
  • 3-5 short bullet points (one or two sentences each) outlining key themes of paper/presentation
  • Name(s), job title(s), organisation(s) of presenters
  • Written synopsis or paper/presentation (no more than 750 words)
  • Full contact details of main contact including email and telephone.

Programme Committee

All submissions will be considered by the conference programme committee. The organisers reserve the right to overrule a decision of the programme committee in order to provide a balanced set of topics, and to invite other speakers where necessary to balance the programme. The confirmed members of the IEA2011 programme committee are:

  • Bob Barton, Managing Director, NITEworks
  • Chief Systems Engineer, GCHQ
  • Dave Chesebrough, President, Association for Enterprise Information
  • Bj√∂rn Conway, Partner, Ernst & Young Defence Practice
  • Patrick Gorman, Asst Head (EA), MOD CIO Office
  • Alan Harding, Chief Systems Engineer, Capability Development, BAE Systems
  • Colonel Luigi Gregori, Deputy Head (EA), MOD CIO Office
  • Sue McCahy, ICG, CSD Applications, MOD
  • Steve Winter, CTO & Strategy Advisor, NATS
  • John Zachman, Zachman International


Submissions should be received by no later than: Friday 17th September 2010
Notifications of acceptance or otherwise will be sent out by: 8th October 2010
Finalised presentation (Microsoft presentations preferred) will need to be submitted by no later than: 18th February 2011

Please direct any queries to Penny Creed at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Best get your skates on if thinking about submitting a paper!


Comment on this article

NATO Architecture Framework Metamodel v3.1 Surfaces

by Nic Plum on Monday 09 August, 2010 - 15:37 GMT

Posted in Architecture FrameworkNAFNews

Tags: c3metamodelnafnatonewsreleaseresourcespecification

NATO logoA 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.



Comment on this article

Has the NATO Architecture Framework v3 Definition “Naffed-Off”?

by Nic Plum on Friday 25 June, 2010 - 13:29 GMT

Posted in Architecture FrameworkNAFStandards

Tags: architecture frameworkc3definitionincosenafnatopublicspecification

Where's the NATO Architecture Framework Definition?Hoping to present at the INCOSE UK Chapter’s Annual Systems Engineering Conference later this year. I was checking the list of references and wanted to make sure I’d got the right URL and title for the the definition of the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) v3. The NATO C3 home page which used to provide a link to the defining documents seems not to have any link or mention of NAF. Without any search mechanism available it looks as though the definition of NAF has well and truly disappeared. Of course it might still exist on the restricted access military network but that’s not much use to folks on the public side who use or wish to use NAF.

Why has it disappeared? Is it really there but I can’t see it? Human error? Is it a harbinger of greater things to come (in the same way folks speculate every time the Apple Store home page goes down for ‘maintenance’)? Have they decided that it’s no longer for the general public?

This is a shame since it has to be better for everyone to have these things in the open. If anyone knows any more or can provide publicly accessible links please get in touch. Until such time it looks like NAF has “naffed-off” ! wink


Comment on this article


Wiki Pages for NAF

A selection of 10 pages from the wiki:

All articles/posts © of the respective authors

Site design and architecture © 2010 - 2019 Eclectica Systems Ltd.