Mapping TOGAF to MDA Standards Updated for Jan 05

1
Mapping TOGAF to MDA StandardsUpdated for Jan 05

• Pete Rivett
• John Spencer

2
Outline

• Follows on from work in TOGAF and OMG to map to
  Zachman Framework
• Just an initial Strawman for discussion
• Concentrates on outputs of TOGAF
• Another standard, Software Process Engineering
  Metamodel (SPEM) can be used to model the TOGAF
  process itself
• Jan 05 update adds Phase D and some changes (in
  blue)

3
UML vs Specific Metamodels

• UML Profiles allow use of existing UML tools
• Note that Profiles change dramatically at UML2
• UML allows profiles and stereotypes icons can
  be attached to stereotype classes
• UML is optional in MDA?
• MDA is about models and metamodels, and
  transformations eg convert class diagrams to
  data schema
• Could define a transformation from org unit to
  LDAP structure based on that org unit nothing
  to do with UML, all about model transformation
• Chalon UML could be a facilitator
• DJ More about well formed languages so tools can
  do the transformation

4
UML vs Specific Metamodels (cont)

• XMI XML Metadata Interchange
• Not an XML language / DTD, but a set of rules for
  generating such a thing
• XMI rules applied to CWM metamodel give one set
  of DTD rules, another metamodel gives a
  completely different set need to know what
  metamodel the DTD was generated from.
• MOF is itself not only a metametamdoel but also a
  metamodel so the XMI files can be applied to
  MOF.
• In UML1.4 less formal in a profile a set of tags
  applied to a model element, also applied to a
  stereotype. If you applied to org unit, tags
  specific to that class.
• In UML 2 stereotype is a subtype of type class.
  Define org unit as a class in its won right.
  Location code is not an attribute a but a .
• In the exchange field you have the class and a
  spe element for org unit, with an association
  between them better in some ways, but also more
  dif to manage

5
UML vs Specific Metamodels (cont)

• White Horse domain specific modeling /
  languages
• Not at all at odds with MG a metamodel is a
  domain specific language
• JM metamodel is a specification of a language.
• Chalon if they have semantics, it is more
• Pete metamodel is the semantics
• MikeG The issue with MS is that MS does not want
  to be beholder to a std it does not control.
  Different approach for a different business
  purpose
• However the resultant elements are UML elements
  not EA elements (e.g. a Class with ltltOrg Unitgtgt
  attached not a Org Unit)
• Hard to manage, query, create views etc
• Hard to interchange
• Eg, if a repository, couldd not query on org
  unit, have to query on class
• Bryan In UML you cannot query on what is being
  modeled.
• The expression of your query in QVT is quite
  different for a profile than an instance of the
  metamodel

6
UML vs Specific Metamodels (cont)

• Approaches (both could be automated!)
• Create mappings/transformations between profiles
  and metamodels
• Create metamodel-specific tools
• Create metamodel-specific tools
• eg we are basing visualization based on Visio
  shapes and icons. Important profiles are
  limited than metamodels do not lalow new
  relahsips beyond what is in origi metanmodel.
• If you had a rich org structure, hard to rep in a
  profile (matrix relationships etc)
• NO new assocs not in the orig metamodel
• In either case the metamodel should be the start
  point
• What is best practice recommendation for
  populating?
• Fred In MDA we talk about CIM. If talking to a
  bus manager, could have a tool at CIM level
  transformation would render at technical level
  for people working at level in this room.

7
UML vs Specific Metamodels (cont)

• DJ Trying to incorporate 1471 so an acquirers
  view of the arch may be expressed in a
  spreadsheet of licensing terms and conditions
  not necessarily class diagrams, E-R diags. So
  can I press a button and generate PPT?
• Pete a spreadsheet is just another
  representation for info in a metamodel. Same info
  can be transformed in different ways

8
Aside OMGs IT Portfolio Management Facility

• New metamodel, just adopted
• Little known, even in OMG
• Integrating metamodel that pulls together
  technical and business metamodels

9
Phase A Architecture VisionOutputs (1)

• Approved Statement of Architecture Work / Project
  Definition, including in particular
• Scope and constraints
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (forthcoming
  RFC based on Business Rules Group work)
• Plan for the architecture work
• OMG No mapping
• Refined statements of Business Principles,
  Business Goals and Strategic Drivers
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (forthcoming
  RFC based on Business Rules Group work)
• Architecture Principles (if not previously
  existing)
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (Policy
  elements)
• May be issued at this meeting
• covers rep of business policy

10
Phase A Architecture VisionOutputs (2)

• Architecture Vision / Business Scenario,
  including
• Business Baseline Version 1
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel, Business
  Process Definition Metamodel, Organization
  Structure Metamodel, Business Semantics of
  Business Rules
• Technical Baseline Version 1
• OMG IT Portfolio Management
• Business Architecture Version 1
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel, Business
  Process Definition Metamodel, Organization
  Structure Metamodel, Business Semantics of
  Business Rules
• Technical Architecture Version 1
• OMG IT Portfolio Management, UML, Enterprise
  Distributed Object Computing, Enterprise
  Application Integration
• Business Requirements
• OMG SysML (submission)

11
Phase B Business ArchitectureOutputs (1)

• Validated business principles, business goals,
  and strategic drivers
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (forthcoming
  RFC based on Business Rules Group work)
• Target Business Architecture - Version 2
  (detailed)
• Organization structure, identifying business
  locations and relating them to organizational
  units.
• OMG Organization Structure Metamodel (RFP)
• Business goals and objectives, for each
  organizational unit.
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (forthcoming
  RFC based on Business Rules Group work)
• Business functions. a detailed, recursive step
  involving successive decomposition of major
  functional areas into sub-functions.
• OMG Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)
  (submissions) or IT Portfolio Management (ITPM)

12
Phase B Business ArchitectureOutputs (2)

• Target Business Architecture - Version 2 (contd)
• Business Services - the services that each
  enterprise unit provides to its customers, both
  internally and externally.
• OMG Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)
  (submissions)
• Business processes, including measures and
  deliverables
• OMG Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)
  (submissions)
• Business roles, including development and
  modification of skills requirements.
• OMG Organization Structure Metamodel (RFP)
  (submissions)
• Correlation of organization and functions. Relate
  business functions to organizational units in the
  form of a matrix report.
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM) or references
  from BPDM to OSM and BPDM

13
Phase B Business ArchitectureOutputs (3)

• Business Baseline - Version 2 (detailed) - if
  appropriate
• OMG UML (Use Cases)
• Views corresponding to the selected viewpoints
  addressing key stakeholder concerns
• OMG UML (Use Cases)
• Gap analysis results
• OMG No mapping
• Technical requirements (drivers for the Technical
  Architecture work) identifying, categorizing and
  prioritizing the implications for work in the
  remaining architecture domains for example, by a
  dependency/ priority matrix. List the specific
  models that are expected to be produced
• OMG UML (Use Cases), SysML (submission)
• Business Architecture Report
• Updated business requirements
• OMG SysML (submission)

14
Phase C Data Architecture Outputs (1)

• Statement of Architecture Work (updated if
  necessary)
• OMG No mapping
• Data Baseline Description - if appropriate
• OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM)
• Validated Principles, or new Data Principles (if
  generated here)
• OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (Policy
  elements), Business Semantics of Business Rules,
  or Ontology Definition Metamodel

15
Phase C Data Architecture Outputs (2)

• Target Data Architecture
• Conceptual data model
• OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM) or Ontology
  Definition Metamodel (ODM) (submission)
• Logical data model
• OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM), UML or ODM
  
• Data Management Process models
• OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM)
• Data entity / business function matrix
• OMG (Generic) references from BPDM to CWM IT
  Portfolio Management (ITPM), EDOC
• Data interoperability requirements
• OMG Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM), EDOC

16
Phase C Data Architecture Outputs (3)

• Viewpoints addressing key stakeholder concerns.
• OMG No mapping but views on other metamodels
• Views corresponding to the selected viewpoints
  e.g.
• Data dissemination view
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM), CWM
• Data lifecycle view
• ZF Composite of System/Data, System/Function,
  System/Time
• Data security view
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM)
• Data model management view
• OMG (Generic) Meta Object Facility (MOF)
• Can I find these stds?
• If published yes, - if WIP then have to be OMG
  member
• QVT used to define views across any metamodel.

17
Phase C Data Architecture Outputs (4)

• Gap analysis results
• OMG No mapping
• Relevant technical requirements that will apply
  to this evolution of the architecture development
  cycle
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM), SysML
• Data Architecture Report, summarizing what was
  done and the key findings
• OMG No mapping
• Impact Analysis
• OMG No mapping but views on other metamodels
  using QVT
• Updated business requirements (if appropriate)
• OMG SysML

18
Phase C Applications ArchitectureOutputs (1)

• Statement of Architecture Work (updated if
  necessary)
• OMG No mapping
• Applications Baseline Description - if
  appropriate
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM)
• Validated Applications Principles, or new
  Applications Principles (if generated here)
• ZF Scope/Function, Scope/Network, Scope/People,
  Scope/Time

19
Phase C Applications ArchitectureOutputs (2)

• Target Applications Architecture
• Process Systems Model
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM) or UML
  (Activity) or Enterprise Distributed Object
  Computing (EDOC)
• Systems / Place Model
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM) or UML
  (Deployment)
• People / Systems Model
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM)
• Systems / Time Model
• OMG UML (Sequence)
• Applications interoperability requirements
• OMG UML (Component) or Enterprise Distributed
  Object Computing (EDOC)

20
Phase C Applications ArchitectureOutputs (3)

• Viewpoints addressing key stakeholder concerns.
• OMG No mapping
• Views corresponding to the selected viewpoints
  e.g.
• Common Applications services view
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM), UML
  (Component) or Enterprise Distributed Object
  Computing (EDOC)
• Applications Interoperability view
• OMG UML (Component) or Enterprise Distributed
  Object Computing (EDOC)
• Applications / Information View
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM), UML
  (Component) or Enterprise Distributed Object
  Computing (EDOC)
• Applications / User locations View
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (ITPM)
• Gap analysis results
• Areas where the Business Architecture may need to
  change to cater for changes in the Applications
  Architecture
• OMG No mapping

21
Phase C Applications ArchitectureOutputs (4)

• Gap analysis results (contd)
• Identify any areas where the Data Architecture
  (if generated at this point) may need to change
  to cater for changes in the Applications
  Architecture.
• OMG No mapping
• Identify any constraints on the Technology
  Architecture about to be designed.
• OMG No mapping
• Applications Architecture Report, summarizing
  what was done and the key findings
• OMG No mapping
• Impact Analysis
• OMG No mapping but views on other metamodels
  using QVT
• Updated business requirements (if appropriate)
• OMG SysML

22
Phase D1 Create Baseline in TOGAF Format -
Outputs

• Technical Principles
• Technology Architecture
• Constraints
• Architecture Principles
• Key questions list
• Criteria
• Architecture Model
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or UML (Deployment)
• This is a MOF complaint metamodel
• Different definition of constraints
• In TOGAF constraining what we can design, not a
  technical style
• OCL about constraining models and metamodels
• Mary Shaw distinguishes between Arch style and an
  arch
• We follow 1471

23
Phase D2 Consider Ref Models, Viewpoints, Tools
- Outputs

• Technology Architecture - Viewpoints
• Networked computing/hardware view
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or UML (Deployment)
• Communications View
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or UML (Deployment)
• Processing View
• OMG UML
• Cost View
• Standards View
• Technology Architecture Constraints
• What does it mean to list starts here? Existence
  or value judgment?
• Not necessarily saying it satisfies everything in
  that view just things we can drill down on to
  analyze further
• We have use ..? UML model for stds view
• Chalon In many places they just list products as
  an arch

24
Phase D3 Create Arch Model of Building Blocks -
Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Networked computing/hardware view
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or UML (Deployment)
• Communications View
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or UML (Deployment)
• Processing View
• OMG UML
• Cost View
• Standards View
• Technology Architecture Change Requests
• OMG Reusable Asset Specification can be used to
  manage reuse aspects of Building Blocks
• RAS puts a wrapper around whatever models are
  generated for this view to promote reuse
• Metamodel for classification schemas TOGAF TRM
  could be represented in that way to promote reuse
• Performance and scalability?
• Not explicitly, but has extensibility

25
Phase D3 Create Arch Model of Building Blocks
Outputs (cont)

• Knowledge Discovery Metamodel - Metamodel for
  replicating existing apps
• RAS can be used for a doc, set of guidelines, an
  arch pattern.
• Can store assets using different metamodels in
  same repository?
• Yes
• Pete RAS at it stands has notion of RAS profile
  different from UML profile. To make st reusable
  end up defining own extension of metamodel so
  effectively have to remodel again. I will be
  proposing a change, link to UML profile so can
  use that.
• EdR RAS has UML model for XML schema?
• Pete RAS is MOF metamdoel can apply XMI to
  it. Came from outside OMG (Rational, Flashline,
  etc.) has old handcrafted XML schema, also an
  XMI generated one
• Does RAS account for versioning?
• Allows you textually to say what version.
• Chalon extension stuff was ad hoc you are
  trying to make more rigorous?

26
Phase D3 Create Arch Model of Building Blocks
Outputs (cont)

• DJ Point of order
• Fred MDA is a series of specs.
• Chalon viability of RAS for reuse depends on
  extensibility mechanism by itself it is very
  bare
• Pete - wrapper mechanism means you can link RAS
  to existing profiles
• JJ Are all these things defined or under
  development?
• Pete action item at end says to define status
  and timetable for this group.
• JJ We have whole devt program for TOGAF9.
• DJ And this is based on T8.

27
Phase D4 Select Services per Building Block -
Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Target Services
• OMG IT Portfolio Management, UML or EDOC
• Change Requests
• ITPM adopted in finalization, UML and EDOC
  already finalized

28
Phase D5 Confirm Objectives Met - Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Requirements Traceability
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or SysML
• SysML not yet adopted has detailed requirements
  profile could trace requirements in UML context
  in SysML (But not outside UML)
• Bryan we need to make clear SysML is a profile
  of UML, possibly with some extensions

29
Phase D6 Determine Criteria for Specification
Selection - Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Requirements Traceability (criteria)
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or SysML
• choosing which spec to apply
• Example?
• DJ I need something to do messaging and
  transformation of message formats
• Chalon so debating arch styles pub/sub, msg
  bus, etc.
• Couldd be a feedback to this what do you need
  to describe these things could generate
  requirements for OMG.

30
Phase D7 Complete Arch Definition - Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Architecture Specification
• OMG appropriate metamodels
• Requirements Traceability
• OMG IT Portfolio Management or SysML
• Mapping of Arch in Technology Continuum
• OMG IT Portfolio Management (?)
• Technology Architecture Report
• Includes Mapping to business objectives?
• Yes
• So here we make the actual choices?
• Yes
• This is the result of the choices made

31
Phase D8 Conduct a Gap Analysis - Outputs

• Technology Architecture
• Gap Report
• Comparison of as-is and to-be
• Also identifies what you need to buy or build
• Any other areas?- Discussion
• Lot of opps in the area of change management
  (Phase H)
• E start to build Solutions Architecture, then
  move on to migration. In T9 will be formalised as
  Transformation
• G is where development actually happens arch
  role tis to monitor, apply governance
• MDA assumes models will be implemented as models
• Chalon Complication may be addiiotnalmodeling
  effrot required in implemenetaiton question fo
  whehr those additional models comply.
• Is ode a model inthis context?
• Chalon Neutral int hat debate. At this level not
  ata stage of being able to generate code. Whhet
  you try to generta ocde or do more mdoels that
  can automate generation of code arch still
  needs to be invoelde in compliance and change
  Managemnt.

32
Phase D8 Conduct a Gap Analysis Outputs (cont)

• JJ So does MDA have something in this space?
• Fred MDA deals with code egenration
• JJ But at Phase D not in a position to do that.
• DJ ADM deals with process, and is stronger in
  Phases A thru D. Not as mush substance in the
  Arch realization part of the process. We have the
  connect that this is where MDA is strongest,
  where we need help. Help develop styles that
  promote conformance.
• Mike What you describe is result of overall
  process. What MAD is today is 2 things
• Set of stds by OMG in response to market demands
  therefore not in logical order provide fw for
  managing all the artifacts of the devt process
  including what TOGAF does. Now you are populating
  part of MDA. You are using MDA, fits nicely with
  other susing MDA.
• Ed This work is result of market forces.
• Chalon I dont think we have even got to the
  level of arch thinking in OMG.
• DJ I bel MDA will beign to our ADM process the
  structure and rigor that we need to grow up as a
  profession

33
Phase D8 Conduct a Gap Analysis Outputs (cont)

• Chalon Multiple tools are being used,a nd not
  designed to collaboration within one method and
  approach
• DJ Powerpoint is the most widespread tools sued
  today for arch thinking!
• JM Pushing the button can mean
• Sendign the arhdcitect to do PPT
• Puttign it in a file, egnerating code direct from
  mdoels
• MDA says nothitgn aboutt hat continuum
• Pete 0 also a scenario of simlauting the mdeol
  before doing wither of the above
• Can also mean publsiihng ona web site and iviting
  someone else to do the code egneration
• EdR List of
• 1 or 2-pager summarising all of these?
• Need expansions
• Pete change object is my invention!

34
OMG Gaps (1)

• Projects
• In effect a container of change
• Will own a lot of the aspects below
• Need inter-project dependencies
• Planning information
• SPEM allows to you define the method being used,
  not a specific project using that method
• Gaps and changes
• Need to be able to review information, identify
  gaps, and use to start a change lifecycle
• SPEM can model the process
• Also need to model change objects etc
• SPEM can be used to model the lifecycle, this is
  about a specific instance
• Changes linked to gaps (how to bridge gaps)
• Chage object chnage metaclass

35
OMG Gaps (1) (cont)

• Principles, Constraints and Assessments
• Business Motivation Metamodel has general Policy
  elements
• Probably need something more specific for
  Architecture
• And ability to capture reviews with
  compliance/non compliance (which turn into gaps
  see above)
• Business Motivation Metamodel does not exist yet
• May be fast-tracked (OMG approval of external
  std)

36
OMG Gaps (2)

• Viewpoints
• Metamodel views can be defined using MOF QVT
• Also need to scope by particular start points
  (e.g. projects, applications)
• As-is and to-be
• MOF Versioning provides the raw capability
• Need appropriate UI for comparison and
  identifying gaps etc
• General traceability
• Available in UML through Dependencies and in QVT
  for Transformations against any models
• Needs to be somewhat further generalized
• Overall these could form the basis of just one
  RFP Model Change Management
• Rolf How did primitive objects in metamodels
  relate to BPMN?

37
OMG Gaps (2) (cont)

• One criterion for RFP is that BPMN metamodel
  should be bale to represent
• Chalon Viewpoints related to Stakeholder. Also
  need to capture that.
• MOF QVT allows to define views across metamdoels.
  Need to build on that. Eg relate to start point
  combine view with a start point also notion of
  stakeholder or role that would be instantiated
  by TOGAF for the particular roles it calls out.
• Ed Elements of EDOC could fill notion of role?
• No this is ADM role.
• UI User Interface
• QVT is for comparing versions, not gaps?
• Pete QVT is one technology approach ..
• JM I want both my as-is and to-be not generate
  one form the other . I dont want to just diff
  them, I want to specify the transformation for
  how I get from here to there.
• DJ Thats the whole project.
• JM Thats how you accomplish it I want to
  specify it in advance as an architect

38
OMG Gaps (2) (cont)

• Chalon Dont see any notion of temporal logic in
  OMG. A lot of times in the specs we want to say
  approved until , then expires
• Thats governance
• Also inherent in project
• JM I want to be able to version my As-is and my
  to-be dont want to confuse them with he
  transition from one to the other.
• General traceability
• DJ Traceability often goes back to arch
  trade-off not sure how you represent that
• Pete yes, need to represent arch decisions and
  rationale
• And how approved, and why
• Sarbanes Oxley will force the market this way
• Chalon ATAM has some stuff.
• Not business motivations
• But implies relations bet things we have in the
  OMG
• EdR Other gaps
• Wrap designs that contain other designs
• Eg security designs

39
OMG Gaps (2) (cont)

• How to say you need to have these sets of
  diagrams
• SPEM does that
• How to say you must link to a use case activity
  diagram
• Constraint? Must be an activity diagram
• Can specify a constraint related to a profile (in
  UML 2.0)
• A lot of diagrams can you specify a new ype fo
  diagram eg DODAF defines a node (DOAF style)
  s stereotyped box, but restricted to certain
  styled items so how do I describe a new diagram
  that outlines what can go in there?
• Pete early stages of an RFP specifying diag
  types. Dont have ability to define diag types.
• EdR Important to fully define TOGAF have to
  specify these types of diags must be
• JM Talking about a new language
• Pete no a gap here Siemens started to define
  
• EdR Want to use
• The fact that profiles can be used does not mean
  not a gap.

40
OMG Gaps (2) (cont)

• EDR to supply the two additional GAPS
• Chalon TOGAF has specified views
• DJ We have done work on best practice. They are
  listed as views you might want to think about
• Can you apply two stereotypes to something?
• Yes not all tools support it.
• Eds 3 gaps (EdR?)
• (captured in diagrams)

41
Proposed Next Steps

• Decide between alternative standards (or to
  retain options)
• Also issue about interoperability e.g. MOF2 vs
  MOF1 basis
• Consider tooling issues
• Esp for metamodels with no UML Profile
• Consider versioning issues
• Do incremental versions of TOGAF Architecture map
  to versions of models?
• Review desired timeline against OMG Roadmap
• Presentation refers to several in-process
  standards
• Contribute to/evaluate in process standards
• Model using real TOGAF data
• TEAMS
• Business architecture?
• Socialize idea of new RFP for Model Change
  Management
• Coordinate with RFI for UML Architecture
  Frameworks
• Model Change Management

42
Proposed Next Steps (cont)

• TEAMS
• Brainstorming
• Planning what next
• How to present / market
• Fatma RFI discussion?
• Ed Not sure if right place to discuss that
• Fred We can distribute RFI to OMG
• Pete this group is addressing same area as RFI
  at least coordination
• JM Future behavior of OMG in this area dictated
  by this RFI
• Fred No constraints on a response to an RFI
  its a survey, request for Information
• Pete can you summarize?
• Fatma Scope is up in the air now not very
  clear in draft RFI. Next week will clarify that.
• Started out by wanting to define arch framework
  for military domain now not doing that. Want to
  constrain scope clarify what we want to
  accomplish
• Pete From what heard in this group personal
  opinion, what should RFI ask for?

43
Proposed Next Steps (cont)

• Fatma Very systematic process defined in ADM
  been trying to map to OMG stds. Nothing in that
  briefing says these are the things that should
  appear in diagram each has own metamodel.
  Original scope was Phase D but now could be
  metamodel across al these phases so that model
  tools could have one metamodel to maintain
  traceability.
• UML? Not necessarily.
• Fred An opp for this community to contribute.
• Ed Mailing list for this community was included
  in last emails.
• Fred Their mailing list is open to OMG members
• Which TF?
• Sys Eng DSIG SIG cannot issue RFIs must work
  thru
• JS RFI issuers might want to think about what
  (if anything) they care about a process as
  opposed to a framework (commonly accepted now as
  meaning set of products)
• Pete Since only a survey

44
Proposed Next Steps (cont)

• Fred RFIs are broadcast to the world
• JM Way to get your questions in is to raise them
  between now and April
• Fatma any questions you want to be ask, pls let
  me know
• Pete that was last of the next steps.
• Versioning do incremental versions of TOGAF
  architecture map to versions of models?
• E.g., steps in Phase D have incremental versions
  of the arch. how maps to MOF versioning?
• This group can provide feedback to in-process
  stds, to make them more suited for our purposes.