1 / 10

XMSF and Enabling DoD M&S Capability

XMSF SUMMIT. XMSF and Enabling DoD M&S Capability. DMSO Perspective by Phil Zimmerman, Associate Director. The Vision. Defense modeling and simulation will provide readily available, operationally valid environments for use by DoD components:

andrew
Télécharger la présentation

XMSF and Enabling DoD M&S Capability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. XMSF SUMMIT XMSFandEnabling DoD M&S Capability DMSO Perspective by Phil Zimmerman, Associate Director

  2. The Vision Defense modeling and simulation will provide readily available, operationally valid environments for use by DoD components: • To train jointly, develop doctrine and tactics, formulate operational plans, and assess war fighting situations. • To support technology assessment, system upgrade, prototype and full scale development, and force structuring. Furthermore, common use of these environments will promote a closer interaction between the operations and acquisition communities in carrying out their respective responsibilities. To allow maximum utility and flexibility, these modeling and simulation environments will be constructed from affordable, reusable components interoperating through an open systems architecture.

  3. DoD M&S Strategy:An Analogy to City Planning Street Plan Ordinances All simulations and live interfaces Building Codes Common Technical Framework • High Level Architecture • CMMS (common world view) • Data Standards Common Services • Help Desks, Education • Resource repositories (MSRR) • Data sources (e.g., environmental) • VV&A policy and procedures • Communication services • Supporting software/tools Payoffs: Interoperability and reuse = capability and cost-effectiveness

  4. Extending InteroperabilityThe HLA Architecture Interfaces toLive Players Support Utilities Simulations Standard Interface Runtime Infrastructure (RTI) Federation Management Declaration Management Object Management Ownership Management Time Management Data Distribution Management • Architecture specifies • Ten Rules which define relationships among federation components • An Object Model Templatewhich specifies the formin which simulation elements are described • An Interface Specificationwhich describes the way simulations interact during operation Critical Factors: Descriptors provided in rules are foundation for reuse Common descriptors aid common understanding Common interface aids design and implementation The HLA is not the RTI; HLA says there SHALL be an RTI (API conforms to the IFSpec), but it doesn’t specify a particular software implementation

  5. How We Arrived Start with a need and technical concept Experiment to evolve a standard • ProtoFederation Experiments • 1995-96: resulted in initial HLA specs • 1996-98: continued experimentation solidified std submission • Submitted to IEEE: 1998 • Standard Published: 2000 • Approved by IEEE REVCOM • Potential of Commercial Vendors • Tools Market: VTC, MaK, DiSTI, Aegis, etc. • RTI Vendors: SAIC, PitchAB (Sweden), Mitsubishi (Japan), MaK • HLA use in • Major US M&S programs: JSIMS, MC02, JSB, JVB, FCS, DMT, FBE, JSF(VSWE), CJ21 (JTC) • International Collaborations: DiMUNDS (NATO), AUS/BFTT

  6. Necessarybut not Sufficient • HLA provides the beginning • An RTI enables data flow • FOM and SOM begin the identification the context • NEEDED!! • Context • Ways to define it • Semi-automated ways to exchange it • Ease in assembling the pieces • Ways to take advantage of new technology

  7. Semantic Consistency:Common Understanding • Lexical • Common vocabulary, data types SEDRIS, UOB, FDMS • Syntactic • Common structures, data delivery RTI, STF • Semantic • Shared understanding OMT, FOM, SOM – just the beginning • Key to rapidly composable systems • Aided by readily accessed data • True Interoperability demands all three levels + delivery

  8. XMSF Process • Start with emerging standards • Web standards • Networking standards • M&S standards • Experiment to evolve a common methodology • Will these standards provide the interoperability required? • Will they enable rapid, easy data access? • Can they move us toward composability? • What’s missing?

  9. XMSF Advantage? • Standardization • A long, hard process – easier if someone else does it • Accessibility • If everyone else is storing information this way… • Can our data access be made easier? • Context • Do the new standards allow for documentation of context in an readily accessible way? • Can it be automated?

  10. Quo Vadis? • Design and carry out critical experiments • Test for the essential “-ilities”, particularly usability and scalability • Test the essential components of IEEE 1516 HLA standard in a web environment • Determine the extent to which the web is a real time environment • Does the documentation capability in XML provide a viable way to describe context? • Can XML provide the transparency into the content of federates that will help users assess semantic consistency across the federation? • What specific tests are needed to span the parameter space? • Is there a critical ordering? • Increase the comfort level

More Related