Framework Alignment

Alignment Model

ADS maps to multiple established frameworks. This page documents both the alignment (what ADS shares with each framework) and the differences (what ADS adds or does differently).

Framework Badges

Each section page in the standard shows badges indicating which frameworks influenced that section:

| Badge | Meaning | |-------|---------| | ISO 42010 | Aligns with the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 conceptual model | | 4+1 View | Maps to a view in Kruchten’s 4+1 Architectural View Model | | TOGAF | Aligns with a TOGAF architecture domain | | AWS WAF | Derived from the AWS Well-Architected Framework | | Azure WAF | Derived from the Azure Well-Architected Framework |

The badges are informational only — they show provenance, not requirements. You do not need to comply with these external frameworks to conform to ADS.

ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010

What ADS Shares with ISO 42010

ADS follows the ISO 42010 conceptual model for architecture descriptions:

| ISO 42010 Concept | ADS Mapping | |-------------------|---------------------| | System of Interest | The solution being documented | | Stakeholders | Stakeholders & Concerns | | Concerns | Concerns Matrix | | Architecture Viewpoint | Defined viewpoints | | Architecture View | The content within each view | | Model Kind | Diagrams, tables, and descriptions within views | | Correspondences | Cross-references between views and quality attribute refs | | Architecture Description | The complete Solution Architecture Document |

Where ADS Goes Beyond ISO 42010

ISO 42010 is a meta-standard — it defines concepts but deliberately leaves the concrete structure to implementers. ADS provides that concrete structure:

| Aspect | ISO 42010 | ADS | |--------|-----------|-----| | Prescribes sections? | No — defines concepts only | Yes — exact sections, tables, and fields | | Quality assessment? | No | Yes — quality attributes from cloud WAFs | | Documentation depths? | No | Yes — Minimum, Recommended, Comprehensive with RFC 2119 | | Security viewpoint? | Not prescribed | Yes — dedicated Security View | | Lifecycle coverage? | Focuses on the AD itself | Yes — CI/CD, operations, migration, exit planning | | Risk and governance? | No | Yes — constraints, risks, assumptions, ADRs, compliance | | Templates? | No | Yes — Markdown, YAML, JSON | | Machine-readable schema? | No | Yes — JSON Schema with validation |

Kruchten 4+1 View Model

What ADS Shares with 4+1

ADS uses the 4+1 model as the foundation for its architectural views:

| 4+1 Original View | ADS View | Key Content | |-------------------|---------------------|-------------| | Logical View | Logical View | Component architecture, service mapping | | Process View | Integration & Data Flow View (adapted) | Data flows, integrations, interfaces | | Development View | Lifecycle Management | CI/CD, SDLC, tooling | | Physical View | Physical View | Deployment, infrastructure, networking | | +1 Scenarios | Scenarios | Use cases, ADRs |

Where ADS Extends 4+1

| Aspect | 4+1 | ADS | |--------|-----|-----| | Data architecture? | Cross-cutting across views | Dedicated Data View | | Security architecture? | Cross-cutting across views | Dedicated Security View | | Process View scope | Concurrency and threading | Adapted to integration and data flows | | Quality assessment? | No | Yes — cross-cutting quality attributes | | Documentation depths? | No | Yes — three tiers |

Note

The standard extends the classic 4+1 model with dedicated Data and Security views. In the original 4+1 model, these are cross-cutting concerns spread across all views. Modern solution architecture demands they be treated as first-class views due to regulatory, compliance, and data governance requirements. The Process View has been adapted to focus on integration and data flows rather than concurrency.

Cloud Well-Architected Frameworks (AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, IBM)

What ADS Shares with Cloud WAFs

ADS derives its quality attributes from the cloud Well-Architected Frameworks:

Note: The cloud providers use American English spelling (e.g., “Optimization”). ADS uses British English (e.g., “Optimisation”). The table below preserves each provider’s original spelling.

| Quality Attribute | AWS | Azure | GCP | Oracle | IBM | |------------------|-----|-------|-----|--------|-----| | Operational Excellence | Operational Excellence | Operational Excellence | Operational Excellence | Operational Efficiency | Operational Excellence | | Security | Security (ADS maps this to a dedicated Security View) | Security (ADS maps this to a dedicated Security View) | Security, Privacy & Compliance (ADS maps this to a dedicated Security View) | Security & Compliance (ADS maps this to a dedicated Security View) | Security (ADS maps this to a dedicated Security View) | | Reliability | Reliability | Reliability | Reliability | Reliability & Resilience | Reliability | | Performance | Performance Efficiency | Performance Efficiency | Performance Optimization | (combined with Cost) | Performance | | Cost | Cost Optimization | Cost Optimization | Cost Optimization | Performance & Cost Optimization | Cost Optimization | | Sustainability | Sustainability | (not separate) | Sustainability | (not separate) | (not separate) | | (provider-specific) | — | — | — | Distributed Cloud | Hybrid & Portable |

Where ADS Differs from Cloud WAFs

| Aspect | Cloud WAFs | ADS | |--------|-----------|-----| | Focus | Quality assessment only | Full SAD structure (views + quality + lifecycle + governance) | | Architectural views? | No | Yes — six views | | Security | A quality pillar | Elevated to a dedicated Architectural View | | Document structure? | No — assessment questions only | Yes — prescriptive sections and tables | | Templates? | No | Yes — Markdown, YAML, JSON | | Provider-neutral? | Each is provider-specific | Yes — maps across all providers |

TOGAF

What ADS Shares with TOGAF

ADS maps its sections to TOGAF’s four architecture domains:

| TOGAF Domain | ADS Section | |-------------|------------------------| | Business Architecture | Executive Summary, Stakeholders | | Data Architecture | Data View | | Application Architecture | Logical View, Integration & Data Flow View | | Technology Architecture | Physical View |

Where ADS Differs from TOGAF

| Aspect | TOGAF | ADS | |--------|-------|-----| | Scope | Full enterprise architecture framework (ADM lifecycle, capability planning, governance) | SAD template only — focused on documenting a single solution | | Prescribes SAD sections? | No — TOGAF describes what an architecture should address but not the document structure | Yes — exact sections, tables, and fields | | Quality attributes? | No | Yes — cross-cutting quality attributes from cloud WAFs | | Security view? | Security is a cross-cutting concern | Yes — dedicated Security View | | Templates? | No (paid ArchiMate tooling available separately) | Yes — free Markdown, YAML, JSON templates | | Compliance scoring? | No | Yes — 0–5 scale per section | | Cost | Paid (TOGAF certification and library access) | Free and open-source (CC BY 4.0) |

arc42

What ADS Shares with arc42

Both ADS and arc42 aim to provide a practical template for documenting software/solution architecture. They share:

• A view-based approach to describing architecture
• Explicit sections for quality requirements
• A glossary and cross-references section

Where ADS Differs from arc42

| Aspect | arc42 | ADS | |--------|-------|-----| | Security view? | No — security is in “cross-cutting concepts” | Yes — dedicated Security View | | Data view? | No | Yes — dedicated Data View | | Quality attributes? | Quality scenarios (unstructured) | Structured quality attributes aligned to cloud WAFs | | Documentation depths? | No | Yes — three tiers with RFC 2119 | | Machine-readable schema? | No — prose only | Yes — JSON Schema with validation | | Compliance scoring? | No | Yes — 0–5 scale per section | | Governance section? | Partial (risks and technical debt) | Full — constraints, assumptions, risks, dependencies, issues, ADRs, compliance traceability | | Lifecycle management? | Partial | Full — CI/CD, migration, resourcing, decommissioning, exit planning |

Section-to-Framework Traceability Matrix

| ADS Section | ISO 42010 | 4+1 | Cloud WAFs | TOGAF | |-----------------|-----------|-----|-----------|-------| | Document Control | AD metadata | — | — | — | | Executive Summary | — | — | — | Business | | Stakeholders | Stakeholders, Concerns | — | — | Business | | Logical View | Viewpoint, View | Logical | — | Application | | Integration & Data Flow | Viewpoint, View | Process (adapted) | — | Application | | Physical View | Viewpoint, View | Physical | — | Technology | | Data View | Viewpoint, View | (extended) | — | Data | | Security View | Viewpoint, View | (extended) | Security | — | | Scenarios | Correspondences | +1 Scenarios | — | — | | Operational Excellence | — | — | Ops Excellence | — | | Reliability & Resilience | — | — | Reliability | — | | Performance Efficiency | — | — | Performance | — | | Cost Optimisation | — | — | Cost Optimization | — | | Sustainability | — | — | Sustainability (AWS, GCP) | — | | Lifecycle Management | — | Development | Ops Excellence | — | | Decision Making & Governance | Correspondences | — | — | — |