Talk:Department of Defense Architecture Framework

message: Have you considered that this page does not make an ounce of sense to the lay person? Perhaps someone who has a clue as to what this is about can write a simplified introduction? Seriously, this page is on par with Turboencabulator as far as jargon goes. --Arlosuave (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page does not make sense to laypeople

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: DoD EA RM

message: 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)
thread_title: DODAF vs Zachman

message: 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)
replies: text: Done    User:Cask05 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a little o direct here

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

text: 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  is, I believe, an effort to lend a data engineering view Cask05 11:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I added links to the V2.0 documents. Please check them to see if they are accessible from a non-DoD computer. Kit. Kitdaddio (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: awkward

message: DoDAF diagramming a big waste of tax dollars.  It's too complex and way too complicated as an engineering communication methodology.  There has to be a simpler way!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.112.30 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Waste of tax dollars

message: Should DODAF acknowledge that many DoD systems need to protect classified information?  Because the effect of security on architecture can be so profound, should there be a place to express the effect of security on the architecture? John (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not really affect the framework used to describe the system, the structure or documents.  For example, there's going to be an AV-1 Overview, and what the system does is written in that -- regardless of what the system does, the writing goes into an AV-1.  And there would be AV-2 Dictionary regardless of what the system is.  And so forth. Markbassett (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Security?

message: DoDAF V2.0 was released in May 2009 and changed multiple viewpoints.  Suggest complete rewrite by someone who better understandsd this change. 75.233.112.215 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some v2.0 content to this. But the v1.5 content should be retained, since v1.5 is still applicable too (e.g., for EA development of existing programs, prior to major upgrade). Kit. Kitdaddio (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DoDAF V2.0

message: The DoDAF is itself an SV1 to at least one larger system. It would be very helpful to see the DoDAF products for that larger system. Even though product descriptions should stand on their own, it is always helpful to understand how they will be used. The article notionally mentions usage but having a detailed model would be much better. Can someone add a reference to that larger system's DoDAF product set? Dan George 83616 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DoDAF is SV1 of What?

message: Does anyone see some survey or studies on how it's been working out  ???
For DODAF / FEAF there are books, and DODAF home, DODAF Journal, cio-nii.defense.gov (FEA OMB includes security, products, standards), the FEA library, sort of the Navy don.cio.navy.mil, and some architecture or requirements management offices....
I see lots laying out a consistent approach to Integrated Architecture. (An architecture where architecture data elements are uniquely identified and consistently used across all products and views within the arctitecture.  Integrated as in everything is linked and consistently done.)  Lots of goals and specs and mandates and tools and training....
:* DODAF 1 says CJCSM 3170.01M guidance on JCIDS mandates appendices ICD, CDD, and CPD have particular DODAF products
:* CJCSI 6212.01E enclosure E table summarizes which DODAF go into which JCIDS document.  
:* diagram of Data-Centric Build Sequence 
:* DODI 4630.8 E4.A2 diagram of how the architecture views relate, and identifying products required for ISP 
:* DODAF CIO post on architecture development, laying out a 6-step architecture
:* Standard Inclusions for Requests For Proposals tables of DODAF product alignments to Milestone reviews, along with table of Product Alignment to Milestone Reviews identifying what is due when and whether Government Produced or Vendor Produced
:* Interoperability and supportability assessors checklist
:* SV-4 Maturity Scale a 3 x 3 of levels (Very low to Very high) based on Completeness (not complete, known ommisions, complete) and Consistency (not internally or with other products, knoown issues, or is consistent to self and other documents)
:* DISA slide using DODAF items in how to establish test criteria for information exchanges 
:* INCOSE Insight article on tips 'Seven Secret Tips To Build Intelligent Enterprise Architectures'
But with all that, I'm not finding things that speak to results seen and the Hard questions with Actual Outcomes of how well is it working out at the low level uses, and is it rolling up to a higher Enterprise Architecture.
:* How REAL is an agency EA ?  High sounds and high bar, easy to walk under if no archive / reading / support
:* What USE is made of this ?  Users don't read such things so are the actual products truly used or even usable at development, test, and support ? ... or are they checkboxes and after Milestone B is nobody asking for it ?  (Fundamentally lacks role of 'as-is' documentation versus 'to-be' vision, and an ability to distinguish which it is.)
I only found one NPS thesis (Applicability of DoDAF to the conversion of a crane ship) but that's just a single case ... anyone see an overall 'DODAF results to date' RS ?   Markbassett (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard questions ...  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Department of Defense Architecture Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123191301/http://www.integrated-ea.com/Previous-Years to http://www.integrated-ea.com/Previous-Years
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030720125416/http://metadata.dod.mil/ to http://metadata.dod.mil/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified