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	—	—	—