The Residual World::Tag = 'News'
Entries that have been tagged with 'News'.-
by Nic Plum on Friday 11 November, 2011 - 11:45 GMT
Just received news from Rich Hilliard via the IEEE 1471 Users List (to become the “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Users List):
Today I was notified that IEEE P42010 was approved as a revised standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 31 October 2011.
This standard replaces IEEE 1471:2000 and is identical to the ISO standard approved in July with 21 approvals and 0 disapprovals from member bodies.
The new standard, designatedISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture description, is available from IEEE and ISO.
The IEEE 1471 website will become the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 website.
The old website will redirect to the new URL which is:
Looking at the website I noticed
Per IEEE rules: An approved IEEE standard will remain active for ten years. If the Sponsor does not complete a revision process within ten years, the standard will be transferred to inactive status.
Curious to know whether this means a standard has to be revised or whether the requirement is simply to review - it might still be a perfectly good standard even if it hasn’t been revised since the decision might be on review that it’s good enough.
Having to say
ISO/IEC/IEEE every time is a bit of a mouthfull and therefore inevitably will be shortened in everyday use. Is there an acceptable shortform(s) e.g. ISO 42010, IEC 42010 and IEEE 42010? It’s unlikely in speech that the full qualification will be used.
- Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (40% )
- What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (40% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (20% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (20% )
- Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (20% )
by Nic Plum on Monday 26 September, 2011 - 12:14 GMT
TRAK is a finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards. As the IET say:
The IET Achievement Awards recognise the exceptional achievements of individuals working in the engineering and technology profession, from the well-known scientist to the fledgling engineer.
It was judged under the IET’s Asset Management category. It wasn’t easy to submit since it didn’t easily fit any of the categories against which judging was to be made. This is an all-too typical problem for systems engineering itself, for example under which subject category in a bookshop do you look for systems engineering books?
The IET’s judging criteria for the Asset Management category is:
The judges will look for originality and will place significant emphasis on the contribution made to whole life asset management, risk management and the impact on business performance. Other factors include progress with implementation, integration into the business and the contribution to asset knowledge.
Last Friday (23rd September) the response came back:
I am delighted to inform you that your entry “TRAK - An Open Source Enterprise Architecture Framework”, reference 0383 has been selected as a finalist for the Asset Management category of the IET Innovation Awards 2011.
It was extremely competitive, with over 400 entries to the awards, but the judges felt that your innovation was amongst the best.
The finalists are listed on the IET Innovation Awards website.
Awards will be announced on 9th November at the Intercontinental Hotel in London.
The IET Innovation Awards 2011 will be hosted by Robert Llewellyn, actor, writer and presenter best known for playing the role of ‘Kryten’ in the hit science fiction sitcom Red Dwarf.
We’ve always thought of TRAK as innovative not just in the product and its definition but in the approach and how it is managed. It’s nice to know that people that are independent think this as well!
- Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (14% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (14% )
- Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (14% )
- What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (14% )
- Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (14% )
by Nic Plum on Monday 09 August, 2010 - 15:37 GMT
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.
- 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% )
- 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