Issues for Mailing list of the Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM 2.0) Finalization Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 15842: Update Statements of Support from DoD and MOD
Issue 15843: Unified Profile for the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the
Issue 15844: format of submitted XMI is proprietary XML
Issue 15845: Update Annex C for DoDAF 2.02
Issue 15846: DoDAF Normative Reference and Bibliography
Issue 15847: Publish UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix
Issue 15848: Add DM2 DoDAF Meta Model to Abbreviations
Issue 15961: "6.2.2 Organization of this Specification" is OBSOLETE
Issue 15962: DoDAF Conformance Level Two. Defer PES & Temporal-Whole-Part
Issue 15963: Add DMM-DM2 Matrix to Conformance Statement
Issue 16021: Merge project/milestone concepts in DoDAF/MoDAF to be complementary to each other
Issue 16022: Combine SOAML. DoD Services and MODAF services properly
Issue 16023: Simplify resources model
Issue 16024: Simplify Location model from DM2
Issue 16025: Simplify measurements model
Issue 16026: Add cosntructs for naming and representation where required
Issue 16027: Missing security attributes group from DM2
Issue 16078: Update L1 and L0 diagram align with current MM
Issue 16079: Rename “Element” to “UPDMElement”
Issue 16080: Add NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind
Issue 16081: Added ProjectMilestoneRole
Issue 16082: Update SysML mapping and OCL
Issue 16083: Modify relationship between EntityItems and ExchangeElements
Issue 16084: Missing DesiredEffects in UPDM
Issue 16085: Add Diagrams to show UPDM elements that are scoped to DoDAF 2.0 diagrams
Issue 16086: Add Diagrams to show non-normative mapping of UPDM elements to views
Issue 16087: Add DoDAF class library diagram
Issue 16088: Add SWAF and SOPES section to DMM section
Issue 16089: There are two diagrams named project. It affects both Projects: core and the DoDAF one
Issue 16090: Add descriptions to a number of subsections
Issue 16095: Need to add contents to DoDAF class library section of the specification
Issue 16160: Fix TM symbol in Trademarks
Issue 16222: Need to change generalisation section text for all elements to be a specialisation
Issue 16223: Replace ActivityPerformableUnderCondition with a Tag

Issue 15842: Update Statements of Support from DoD and MOD (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense (Mr. Leonard F. Levine, Leonard.F.Levine.civ(at)mail.mil)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:

"6.1.1 Statement of support from the DoD representative" (Make Request to Mr. Levine for DoD EA for IT Standards and to Mr. Okon for DoD-CIO) and "6.1.2 Statement of support from the MOD representative" (Request to Mr. Patrick Gorman)

In re 6.1.1, I expect to respond with U.S. DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards position.  Namely, UPDM Version 1.0's status as "MANDATED" for those following DoDAF 1.5; my intent to submit UPDM 2.0 as "EMERGING" as soon as OMG AB approves (anticipated for March 2011). Will note status of DoDAF 2.02 (August 2010) in DoD. Will note that UPDM DMM is aligned with DoDAF MM (DM2) as of DoDAF 2.02 via mapping matrix. Also will note status of constituent specifications UML & SysML & other?.  Finally, will note UPDM 1.1 status related to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- being submitted AND our expectation that UPDM 2.1 will also be submitted to ISO. If OMG UPDM Group wishes to clarify other areas, please submit with request.

Resolution: Rationale Helps jsutify UPDM with support from MOD, DOD and SWAF Resolution working on getting support from authorities
Revised Text: see pages 322 - 326 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 15843: Unified Profile for the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the (updm-2-0-ftf)

Update the Sample Problem. Pay particular attention to those MODELS, Elements or items that were still in development by DoD and MOD in the year before DoDAF 2.02 (approx. Sep 09 - Aug 10) with some resolutions between UPDM DMM (domain metamodel), DoDAF Meta Model (DM2), and in part IDEAS group.  A critical list should be developed and coordinated with US DM2 Working Group Chair (Mr. McDaniels) and other interested parties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

duplicate, issue closed

Issue 15844: format of submitted XMI is proprietary XML (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Critical
Summary:

The format of the submitted XMI is XML and in proprietary rich XMI format. This appears to be unreadable by at least two common UML tools RSA and Rhapsody.

Resolution: XMI has been updated to be compliant to the OMG standard format
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 15845: Update Annex C for DoDAF 2.02 (updm-2-0-ftf)

Update the Sample Problem. Pay particular attention to those MODELS, Elements or items that were still in development by DoD and MOD in the year before DoDAF 2.02 (approx. Sep 09 - Aug 10) with some resolutions between UPDM DMM (domain metamodel), DoDAF Meta Model (DM2), and in part IDEAS group.  A critical list should be developed and coordinated with US DM2 Working Group Chair (Mr. McDaniels) and other interested parties. The plain-English scenario must be upgraded to match UPDM 2.0 and DoDAF 2.02.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue

Discussion:

Issue 15846: DoDAF Normative Reference and Bibliography (updm-2-0-ftf)

3 Normative References.  Add reference to DoDAF MetaModel (DM2) Version 2.02 of August 2008 specifically.  You may need to use a web citation.  Rationale:  UPDM 2.0 Domain Meta Model (DMM) MUST conform to the DoDAF Meta Model 2.02 rather than 2.00 for various technical reasons.

Bibliography, Annex D, Page 431. Citation of DoDAF should  be to Version 2.0 for all three 3) volumes.  Citations of DoDAF MetaModel specific Version 2.02 as should DoDAF PES Version 2.02 should be added

Resolution: Resolution WORKING: Need new Links
Revised Text: see pages 327 - 329 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 15847: Publish UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix (updm-2-0-ftf)

Either as an additional non-normative Annex or as a separte document, please publish the UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix. This spreadsheet matrix is essential to OMG UPDM Group's claim that UPDM 2.0 specification "conforms" with DoDAF MetaModel (DM2) at the proposed Level 2 (metamodel conformance).  Tool vendors will also be able to facilitate their conformance using this as a checklist. Such a published matrix will also facilitate the work of vendors who wish to conform with the DoDAF Physical Exchange Specification (PES) -- which is either an alternative or supplement to OMG's MODEL exchange via XMI.  PES is DATA oriented and available to non-OMG-UML vendors.  A tool that conformed to both DM2 and PES would conform to the proposed Level 3 for DoDAF.

Resolution: Rationale I think this relates to the UPDM Profile rather than the DMM, the table is updated to cover mappings between UPDM, DODAF 2.0 and MODAF 1.2.0.4 Resolution Replace section Table B1 UPDM Elements to DoDF1.5/MODAF with contents of UPDM Element mapping to DoDAF 2 V1 doc
Revised Text: see pages 1677 - 180 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 15848: Add DM2 DoDAF Meta Model to Abbreviations (updm-2-0-ftf)

5 Symbols/Acronyms


DM2 DoDAF Meta Model
DMM UPDM Domain Meta Model
PES DoDAF Physical Exchange Specification

Resolution:
Revised Text: Original Text: None Revised Text: Added to the Symbols and Acronyms table section 5 DM2 DoDAF Meta Model DMM UPDM Domain Meta Model PES DoDAF Physical Exchange Specification
Actions taken:
November 24, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 15961: "6.2.2 Organization of this Specification" is OBSOLETE (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense (Mr. Leonard F. Levine, Leonard.F.Levine.civ(at)mail.mil)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:

Description:


STRIKE in entirely the Old text, "6.2.2 Organization of this Specification
DoDAF and MODAF are specifically organized around a set of viewpoints and views that address the concerns of a well-defined set of stakeholders. This specification organizes the presentation of the UPDM 2.0 abstract and concrete syntax around those viewpoints, so that the discussion is well-connected to their domain expertise. (See Section 1.5 for a more detailed description.)"


Substitute:
DoDAF and MODAF are formally expressed as domain-specific meta-models known as the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) and the MODAF Meta Model (M3) respectively. There is also a set of viewpoints and views that address the concerns of a well-defined set of stakeholders. Before DoDAF Version 2.0 and UPDM Version 2.0, these were the organizing factors.  This is no longer the case. This specification organizes the presentation of the UPDM 2.0 abstract and concrete syntax around the meta-models, with effort made to establish a maximum set of common Core models and a minimum set of DoDAF DM2 or MODAF M3 specific models.  Significant effort has also been made to continue to support the now over 50 viewpoints that can be derived from these meta-models as well as "user-defined views". This is done so that the discussion is well-connected to the domain experts required to produce these views. (See Section 1.5 for a more detailed description.)"

Resolution: see pages 184 - 185 of issue dtc/2011-06-12
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 15, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 15962: DoDAF Conformance Level Two. Defer PES & Temporal-Whole-Part (updm-2-0-ftf)

Description:


1. Strike "DoDAF 2.0" and replace with "DoDAF 2.02" throughout the section.


2. Add paragraph. "UPDM 2.0 aims to conform with DoDAF 2.02 at Level Two (2).  DoDAF has defined four levels of conformance: 
1) Conceptual Conformance; 
2) Logical (Meta Model) Conformance(where there is a mapping to the terms & relationships of DM2 logical data model (LDM); 
3)Physical (Physical Exchange Specification) Conformance; and 
4) full Semantic Conformance.

3. Add paragraph. The DoD-CIO has clarified in a Decision Brief of 12 Jan 11 that it does not expect UPDM 2.0 to achieve Level 4 conformance.  Level 4 may require full implementation of 4D (geo-spatial-temporal modeling)including a global implementation of Whole-Part and Temporal-Whole-Part for all UPDM elements (classes/objects).  The discussion of Level 4 Conformance has been deferred until UPDM 3.0.

Resolution:
Revised Text: 7.7.2 DoDAF 2.0 conformance: Change text to reflect DoDAF 2.02 conformance. Original Text: Compliance with UPDM 2.0 Profile including metadata should assist the tool vendor in adhering to DoDAF 2.0 because the UPDM 2.0 Core and DoDAF-specific metadata models in UPDM 2.0 adhere to the metadata model inherent in DoDAF 2.0 Conceptual and Logical data models. In developing the UPDM 2.0, domain meta-modelers have also consulted the corresponding Physical data model in DoDAF 2.0 and to resolve questions of general conformance with enterprise-level architectural elements. Nevertheless, tool vendors are advised to consult DoDAF Version 2.0 (especially Volume I, page 2-6; Volume II, page 2-6; and Volume III, page 1-2) before claiming DoDAF 2.0 compliance. While conformance with UPDM 2.0 Core and DoDAF-specifics should greatly facilitate conformance with DoDAF 2.0, each tool vendor is still responsible for the tool's ultimate conformance with the documented architecture framework. Revised Text: Compliance with UPDM 2.0 Profile including metadata should assist the tool vendor in adhering to DoDAF 2.02 because the UPDM 2.0 Core and DoDAF-specific metadata models in UPDM 2.02 adhere to the metadata model inherent in DoDAF 2.02 Conceptual and Logical data models. In developing the UPDM 2.0, domain meta-modelers have also consulted the corresponding Physical data model in DoDAF 2.02 to resolve questions of general conformance with enterprise-level architectural elements. Nevertheless, tool vendors are advised to consult DoDAF Version 2.02 before claiming DoDAF 2.02 compliance. The DoD-CIO has clarified in a Decision Brief of 12 Jan 11 that it does not expect UPDM 2.0 to export models in PES, nor to provide an implementation of 4D (geo-spatial-temporal modeling) including a global implementation of Whole- Part and Temporal-Whole-Part for all UPDM elements (classes/objects).
Actions taken:
January 15, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 15963: Add DMM-DM2 Matrix to Conformance Statement (updm-2-0-ftf)

Description:


Reference:  
"Issue 15847: Publish UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix (updm-2-0-ftf)"


Add paragraph or sentence. 
"The UPDM Domain MetaModel to DoDAF MetaModel Compliance Matrix has been published as non-normative Annex [EDIT] of the specification to aid tool vendors in their claims to DoDAF Level 2 Conformance.  This matrix should also facilitate upgrades to Level 3 and 4 of DoDAF Conformance in future versions of UPDM."

Resolution: The traceability lies between the DoDAF 2.0.2 metamodel and the UPDM profile rather than the DMM. The terms in the DMM are similar if not identical to the DoDAF Metamodel. The statement will be altered to reflect this The UPDM Profile to DoDAF MetaModel
Revised Text: see pages 189 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
January 15, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16021: Merge project/milestone concepts in DoDAF/MoDAF to be complementary to each other (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:

Merge MODAF and DODAF concepts for projects to allow Milestones and ProjectActivities to work togther

Resolution: Rationale The DoDAF and MODAF ways of dealing with AcV-2 and PV-2 are different, we need a way to tie them together Resolution Allow a specialization of Activities to represented as ProjectActivities and tied to Projects.
Revised Text: see pages 191 - 196 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16022: Combine SOAML. DoD Services and MODAF services properly (updm-2-0-ftf)

ServiceAccess completion:
        a.       How to make it work with SOAML (e.g. should it be the only thing that can realize a ServiceInterface)?
        b.      Stereotypes for owned Properties (and decomposition constraints)?
SOAML completion:
        a.       Final mapping between MODAF and SOAML.
        b.      Name changes to make things compatible (or leave as aliases if the proper names are going to confuse things too much)?

Resolution: see pages 109 - 139 of dtc/2011-06-12
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16023: Simplify resources model (updm-2-0-ftf)

Resource simplification (i.e. can we just have one Property stereotype for all Resources and just leave the others as optional aliases for MODAF)?

Resolution: see pages 140 - 163 od dtc/2011-06-12
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16024: Simplify Location model from DM2 (updm-2-0-ftf)

Suggest enum be used to define locationkinds

Resolution: Rationale Too many types of location elements location taxonomy in DM2, needs to be simplified to reduce complexity Resolution Added LocationKind, LocationTypeKind, GeoPoliticalExtentKind and GeopoliticalExtentTypeKind with enumarated literals that map to DM2 types of Location and GeopoliticalExtent
Revised Text: see pages 198 - 205 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16025: Simplify measurements model (updm-2-0-ftf)

need to define Measurement enumerations and model library, DM2

Resolution: Rationale Need to Simplify DoDAF Measures to align with UML Resolution Added MeasurementSet, MeasureType and Measure to allow synchronisation with DoDAF 2
Revised Text: see pages 207 - 209 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16026: Add cosntructs for naming and representation where required (updm-2-0-ftf)

Add cosntructs for naming and representation where required

Resolution: Rationale Need to map representations of information into UPDM Resolution Define Information, SameAs and InformationKind to define types of information
Revised Text: see pages 210 - 212 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: reeived issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16027: Missing security attributes group from DM2 (updm-2-0-ftf)

Add security attributes group as model library to Profile

Resolution: Rationale No SecurityAttributes in UPDM Resolution Added SecurityAttributesModel to UPDM 16027 Add
Revised Text: see pages 213 - 215 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
February 14, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16078: Update L1 and L0 diagram align with current MM (updm-2-0-ftf)

 Add SOPES and SWAF to the L1 and L0 diagram, L0 Import Participant and ServiceChannel from SOAML,

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue

Issue 16079: Rename “Element” to “UPDMElement” (updm-2-0-ftf)

UPDMElement has more meaning that Element

Resolution: see pages 8 - 108 of dtc/2011-06-12
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16080: Add NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Add NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind

Resolution: Rationale Missing from list of AFs Resolution Modify the element ArchitectureFrameworkKind by adding NAF to list of ArchitectureFrameworkKind. Added ArchitectureFrameworkKind to ArchitecturalDescription Diagram for clairification.
Revised Text: see pages 217 - 219 12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16081: Added ProjectMilestoneRole (updm-2-0-ftf)

Needed to change the way that ActualProjects relate to the actualProjectMilestones so that it is more UML like

Resolution: Rationale Needed to change the way that ActualProjects relate to the actualProjectMilestones so that it is more UML like Resolution Added ProjectMilestoneRole as an InstanceSpecification and ActualProjectMilestoneRole
Revised Text: see pages 220 - 224 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16082: Update SysML mapping and OCL (updm-2-0-ftf)

Update SysML mapping and OCL to SySML 1.2

Resolution: Rationale Align mapping of elements to SysML 1.2 Resolution Changes to SysML mapping table and XMI version 2.1.1
Revised Text: see pages 225 - 232 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16083: Modify relationship between EntityItems and ExchangeElements (updm-2-0-ftf)

Modify relationship between EntityItems and ExchangeElements to give a more graphical view of the mapping

Resolution: Rationale More graphical view of the mapping Resolution Add dependency “Details” between entityitems and exchangeElements
Revised Text: see pages 234 - 240 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16084: Missing DesiredEffects in UPDM (updm-2-0-ftf)

Need to show relationship between effects desired the desirer and the desired state that achieve that effect

Resolution: Rationale Need to show relationship between effects desired the desirer and the desired state that achieve that effect Resolution Added Desirer, DesiredEffect, and Operational and ResourceState
Revised Text: see pages 242 - 249 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16085: Add Diagrams to show UPDM elements that are scoped to DoDAF 2.0 diagrams (updm-2-0-ftf)

Resolution: Rationale Enables DoDAF 2.0 users familiar with DM2 to see the relatioship between DM2 and UPDM 2 Resolution Added normative appendix containing diagrams Activity, Capability,Goals, Information and data, Location, Measure, Naming and Description, Performer, Project, Resource flow, Rules, Services, Training skill and education. Add Section Annex A 9.4 from whole model .doc after the new section 9.3 (Swaf section) in the complete model.doc
Revised Text: see pages 250 - 260 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16086: Add Diagrams to show non-normative mapping of UPDM elements to views (updm-2-0-ftf)

Enables developers and users to understand what elements sensiby appear on the relevant UPDM views

Resolution: Rationale Enables developers and users to understand what elements sensibly appear on the relevant UPDM views Resolution Add non-normative appendix of UPDM views. Add the UPDM views in Annex B Chapter 10 (wholeModel.doc) into Annex B complete doc
Revised Text: see pages 261 - 299 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16087: Add DoDAF class library diagram (updm-2-0-ftf)

Add DoDAF class library diagram and relevant elements to documentation.

Resolution: Rationale Needed to view the supporting elements for DoDAF around measurement sets and the security attributes group Resolution Create DoDAF class library diagram and populate with elements from the class library.
Revised Text: duplicate of issue 16024
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16088: Add SWAF and SOPES section to DMM section (updm-2-0-ftf)

Missing SWAF design rules and SOPEs diagrams from DMM section of documentation

Resolution: Rationale Completeness of the spec Resolution Add SOPES section 9.2 from wholemodel doc to end of annex A ADD SWAF section 9.3 from whole model doc to end of annex A after SOPES
Revised Text: see pages 301 - 306 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16089: There are two diagrams named project. It affects both Projects: core and the DoDAF one (updm-2-0-ftf)

Resolution: Rationale Need to simplify the profile Resolution Replace section 8.3.1.1 Project both diagram and associated text that is there now with the diagram and text from section 8.2.1.1.1.1.5 ProjectType (after revision of class and classifier roles). Remove section 8.2.1.2.1.1 Project and associated text Remove 8.2.1.1.1.1.5 ProjectType
Revised Text: see pages 307 - 311 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16090: Add descriptions to a number of subsections (updm-2-0-ftf)

Diagram Affected sections
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::AllElements::Structure missing
description (for example "The structural aspects of the AllElements
profile").
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::OperationalElements description should
be laid out correctly.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AcquisitionElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Behavior missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Environment missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::AllElements::Measurements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM
L0::DoDAF::OperationalElements::Structure::Organizational missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::StrategicElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::TechnicalStandardsElements missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::DoDAF::TechnicalStandardsElements::Data
missing description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::MODAF::AllElements::Environment missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM
L0::MODAF::OperationalElements::Structure::Organizational missing
description.
UPDM L1::UPDM L0::MODAF::TechnicalStandardsElements
missing description.
PV-3 DMM diagram missing description.
Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt,
After: 0 pt
Formatted Table
Formatted: Font: 14 pt
Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt,
After: 0 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
UPDM 2.0 FTF
Disposition: Resolved
Missing descriptions
Document dtc/2011-065-01 Page 313
SV-5/SvcV-5 - DMM diagram missing description.
CV-7 - DMM diagram missing description.

Resolution: Rationale Aids readability Resolution Add text beneath the section heading indicated in the revised text.
Revised Text: see pages 313 - 314 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
March 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16095: Need to add contents to DoDAF class library section of the specification (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Missing contents of DoDAF class library section, they need to be extracted from the model

Resolution: Duplicate 16087, 16027, closed issue
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 24, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16160: Fix TM symbol in Trademarks (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Seven Tablets (Mr. Daniel Brookshier, turbogeek(at)cluck.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:

Original

MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered  trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management GroupTM, OMGTM , Unified Modeling LanguageTM, Model Driven Architecture LogoTM, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI LogoTM, CWMTM, CWM LogoTM, IIOPTM , MOFTM , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL)TM, and OMG SysMLTM are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Revised

MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered  trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management Group ™, OMG ™ , Unified Modeling Language ™, Model Driven Architecture Logo ™, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI Logo ™, CWM ™, CWM Logo ™, IIOP ™ , MOF ™ , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL) ™, and OMG SysML ™ are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Resolution: Rationale Need correct format Resolution Fixed TM
Revised Text: Original, Trademarks section on 3 rd page of specification MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management GroupTM, OMGTM , Unified Modeling LanguageTM, Model Driven Architecture LogoTM, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI LogoTM, CWMTM, CWM LogoTM, IIOPTM , MOFTM , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL)TM, and OMG SysMLTM are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners. Revised MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management Group ™, OMG ™ , Unified Modeling Language ™, Model Driven Architecture Logo ™, Model Driven Architecture DiagramTM, CORBA logosTM, XMI Logo ™, CWM ™, CWM Logo ™, IIOP ™ , MOF ™ , OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL) ™, and OMG SysML ™ are trademarks of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only, and may be trademarks of their respective owners.
Actions taken:
April 23, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16222: Need to change generalisation section text for all elements to be a specialisation (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Need to change generalisation text for each element from 

original text format 
• Generalizations 
The following are generalization relationships for OrganizationalProjectRelationship: 

To, revised text format 

Â·        Specializations 

The OrganizationalProjectRelationship element is a specialization of:

Resolution: Rationale Correct text required Resolution Change format
Revised Text: Original. Text Format Generalizations The following are generalizations relationships for ActualProject: Revised. Text format Specializations The ActualProject element is a specialisation of:
Actions taken:
May 11, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue

Issue 16223: Replace ActivityPerformableUnderCondition with a Tag (updm-2-0-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Replace ActivityPerformableUnderCondition with a Tag

Resolution: Rationale Reduces the amount fo drawing required to create the tuple Resolution Created a tag with the same name on an Activity and typed by environment
Revised Text: see pages 319 - 320 of dtc/2011-06-12
Actions taken:
May 11, 2011: received issue
October 21, 2011: closed issue