View NAF:NSV-12 Service Provision Subview

NATO_logo.gif

Overview

The NSV-12 Service Provision subview is part of the NATO System View and one of the 47 NATO Architecture Framework subviews.

Version & Date

Version 3.0

See NAF Release History.

Purpose

From the NATO Architecture Framework v3, CHAPTER 4, Section 4.7.12

The purpose of the Service Provision subview (NSV-12) is to illustrate which systems contribute to the provision of which services.

Covered by NATO release conditions.

Definition

From the NATO Architecture Framework v3, CHAPTER 4, Section 4.7.12

The NSV-12 subview is a mapping of systems, as identified in NSV-1, to services, as defined in NSOV-2.

If more detail is required (i.e. beyond the system level), system functions, as defined in NSV-4, can be mapped to services as well. This mapping can be either direct or through an intermediary mapping from NSV-4 system functions to NSV-1 systems.

If the concept of a system is used to mean the more general concept of a type of resource, it is allowed to include concepts reflecting other types of resources, such as capability configurations, physical assets and roles.

Covered by NATO release conditions.


From the NATO Architecture Framework v3, CHAPTER 5, Section 5.2.6.12

This view is used to describe how a service is implemented by one or more systems. A particular implementation of a service can be seen as a capability configuration that is associated with this service. By providing this information, a clear connection between a service, as described in the NSOV diagrams, and systems that implement it can be defined.


Covered by NATO release conditions.

Comments

System is defined within the metamodel yet here we have

If the concept of a system is used to mean the more general concept of a type of resource, it is allowed to include concepts reflecting other types of resources, such as capability configurations, physical assets and roles.

is inconsistent with the definition of System within NAF as a stereotype in it’s own right. How can you define a metamodel element as a system and then explicitly use other stereotypes to represent one? One or the other is not a ‘system’ and this therefore risks incompatibility / inability to exchange models.

The view definition should be consistent with the metamodel. It isn’t.

Other Frameworks

See also:

 

References

  • Section 4.7.12 (page 263 of pdf) of APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX 1 TO AC/322-D(2007)0048. NATO Architecture Framework Version 3.
  • Section 5.2.6.12 (page 418 of pdf) of APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX 1 TO AC/322-D(2007)0048. NATO Architecture Framework Version 3.

 


Category:Framework -> View
Category:NAF -> Subview
Category:Solution

Categories:

 

© 2010 Eclectica Systems Ltd.