Talk:Department of Defense Architecture Framework

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does anyone know how the DoD EA RM (SRM/TRM/etc) fit this DODAF? Some DoD EA RM details can be found here - --Richard@lbrc.org 17:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The taxonomy/ontology used in DoDAF TVs and SVs is from the DoD BEA, which is an add-on to the FEA. If you make up entity names without using the BEA when there's a BEA entity defined, you get dinged, for example. BTW, the V3.0 BEA draft was released on the 26th - I went through the transition plan and it was quite a startling read. Looks like we're going to have to start talking about Paul Brinkley and the BTA pretty soon, as he's really leaving a mark.Gletiecq 05:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What about DODAF vs Zachman? Can these two frameworks work together? Richard@lbrc.org

I believe the answer is yes. The training I received used a Zachman Framework matrix as the "roadmap" for DoDAF views. However, note that DoDAF and Zachman are not exactly one-to-one at the top-most level. Zachman will concentrate on business enterprise needs, while DoDAF initially focuses on the military customer's environment. This point is usually missed by DoD (government) acquisition personnel, but contractor personnel usually catch this early on. See Enterprise DoD Architecture Framework and the Motivational View and The C4ISR Architecture Framework: History, Status, and Plans for Evolution for more discussion on this. User:Cask05 08:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can SOMEONE make DoDAF with a little o direct here? I missed hte page entirely on my first search. Google happened to find it in a later one. Bihal 04:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done User:Cask05 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone else working with DoDAF find it....awkward (to put it nicely)? Bihal 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Awkward in the sense of the number of views (AVs, OVs, SVs, TVs), or are you referring to one particular view? Many people look at the total viewset and are somewhat intimidated, however, it must be understood that the views actually used for a DoDAF effort are those that are needed for each instance or application. Cask05 11:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The framework as a whole. I'm working on an implementation of the metamodel (so a tool to produce the products) and it often seems like a bit of a head case. Some awkward ways of representing information (often influenced by the Database format sotrage of information?). It just seems a little strange. MoDAF does a very similar thing, but describes it better, in my opinion. Easier to work with from my point of view. Bihal 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I could see your point of view on this. My opinion is that DoDAF is better for tool users than for the tool developers. I see some characteristics about the schema and the views that could be made to support your case. However, I believe that some of these issues have at least a chance of being worked out over time with upgrades to DoDAF (e.g., version 2, etc.). The last time I looked, MoDAF was restricted such that one cannot see the implementation (must have an active MoD contract to access their documentation). The representation of the DoDAF SVs, particularly the SV-5 seems odd to me. The ABM methodology [1] is, I believe, an effort to lend a data engineering view Cask05 11:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All links to the DoDAF documents don´t work. They may have been moved or deleted by the DoD. The only one I get if I click on the links, is a page not found error message.