It is relatively common for end-users to conflate the DoD Architecture Framework v2 (DoDAF v2 or DoDAF 2) standard with the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) standard since since there is significant syntactic and semantic overlap between the two, and both acronyms contain the "Architecture Framework" phrase, which is confusing in its own right.
The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) is a general-purpose OMG (Object Management Group) UML2/SysML Profile (customization of OMG UML2 and SysML architecture modeling language standards) that enables UML2 and SysML tools to conform to the DoDAF 2, MODAF (UK Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework), NAF (NATO Architecture Framework), and other industry EAF standards.
DoD Architecture Framework v2 (DoDAF v2 or DoDAF 2) is the latest version of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) tool-independent standard for specifying enterprise architectures for defense-aerospace applications. U.S. DoD has required that new defense-aerospace applications architectures conform with DoDAF since DoDAF v1 (2004), but this conformance is not well defined nor is it enforced.
Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) is the latest version of an Object Management Group (OMG) industry standard for UML2/SysML-compliant tools to support DoDAF, MODAF (UK Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework) conformance. UAF purports to support other Ea and other Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (TBD). UAF is the successor to UPDM (Unified Profile for DoDAF & MODAF) v1 and v2, which served a similar function for UML2/SysML-compliant tool vendors.
So if you want your defense-aerospace system architecture to be DoDAF-2 conformant and SysML-compliant you should choose a SysML-compliant tool (e.g., MagicDraw/Cameo, Sparx EA) that supports the subset of the UAF Profile that you need for your selected DoDAF 2 work products («Viewpoint»'s, «View»'s). In practice this tends to be challenging since the work product choices for DoDAF 2 suffers from featuritis (~8 «Viewpoint»'s and 52 «View»'s), and UAF exacerbates the featuritis by providing additional gratuitous work products for MODAF and NAF.
It is relatively common for end-users to be overwhelmed by the size, complexity, and syntactic/semantic overlap between the DoDAF2 + UAF standards, and suffer both severe cognitive dissonance and Analysis-Paralysis Syndrome. Consider Eric Barnhart's Google-infamous UAF presentation to INCOSE (An Introduction to the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) [Barnhart 2017]) in which he noted tongue-in-cheek:
Have you ever gone to DoDAF class and left more confused than when you went in?
Now try going to a UAF class!
...
What is UAF? ... A complicated framework that makes enterprise architecture even harder ...
If you are currently suffering cognitive dissonance and/or Analysis-Paralysis Syndrome from DoDAF2 + UAF: No Worries! PivotPoint's Agile DoDAF 2 + UAF Training applies a lightweight subset of the UAF Profile to produce a corresponding lightweight subset of Agile DoDAF 2 work products (typically a 70+% reduction in size/complexity) that are both scalable and simulatable. The Agile DoDAF architecture, analysis and design patterns that we teach are compatible with popular SysML-compliants modeling tools: Cameo/MagicDraw, Sparx EA, Rhapsody; others available on request.
Contact us to discuss details regarding Agile DoDAF 2 + UAF Training options for your team and project.