| return to the OMG Standards

Note: The following is an excerpt from the actual document. It is provided here as a connivence and is not authoritative. Refer to the original document as the authoritative reference.

The scope of Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) includes the language extensions to enable the extraction of specified and custom models from an integrated architecture description (AD). The models describe a system ¹⁾ from a set of stakeholders’ concerns such as security or information through a set of predefined viewpoints and associated views ²⁾. Developed models can also reflect custom viewpoints or to develop more formal extensions for new viewpoints. The UAFP specification supports the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) 2.02, the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), Security Views from Canada’s Department of National Defense Architecture Framework (DNDAF) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Architecture Framework (NAF) v 3.1. The core concepts in the UAF domain metamodel specify the UAFP based upon the DoDAF 2.0.2 Domain Metamodel (DM2) and the MODAF ontological data exchange mechanism (MODEM). MODEM is intended to provide the basis for the next version of NAF). The intent is to provide a standard representation for AD support for Defense Organizations. The intention of UAFP is also to support a standard representation for non-defense organizations’ ADs as part of their Systems Engineering (SE) technical processes. The associated UAF metamodel (see C4i-2016-02-03) intent is to improve the ability to exchange architecture data between related tools that are UML/SysML based and tools that are based on other standards.

UAFP v 1.0 supports the capability to:

• model architectures for a broad range of complex systems, which may include hardware, software, data, personnel, and facility elements;

• model consistent architectures for system-of-systems (SoS) down to lower levels of design and implementation;

  • support the analysis, specification, design, and verification of complex systems; and

• improve the ability to exchange architecture information among related tools that are SysML based and tools that are based on other standards.