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.

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

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

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% )
• TRAK is a Finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards (13% )
• 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% )

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

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

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” !

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[169][related1_blog]SUQxFEpLREL}

Sharing tags:

• MODAF is Dead - Long Live ‘NAF’? (38% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (13% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (13% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (13% )
• TRAK Article Published by The Institution of Engineers (Singapore) (13% )

Forums

• See discussion thread in forums

External Links

• INCOSE Annual Systems Engineering Conference 2010
• NATO C3 Home Page