Symmetric Multimodal Interactive Intelligent Development Environments

1. Symmetric Multimodal Interactive Intelligent Development Environments • Dramatic reduction in time and cost of constructing software designs and related engineering artifacts • Production of higher quality artifacts through interactive design. • Metrics to be refined during seedling. Let’s create a data interface component Does this process need access to the database? STATUS QUO QUANTITATIVE IMPACT • Current Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) are developer-centric, detail-intensive, and error-prone • Modality is essentially paper-based and human developer-centric • IDEs support limited consistency checking and debugging • Multi-modal Mixed-initiative User Interface • Supports sketching, gestures, natural language. • System can query human for clarification, suggestion, etc. • System can take initiative in design and implementation, freeing the human from detailed specification of lower-level details • Adaptive Domain Specific Model-Based Software Engineering tools • Support evolution of domain “vocabulary” • Support diagramming using symbology specific to a domain. • ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: • Anticipated productivity gains can be demonstrated on well-defined domains. • Current natural language technology is sufficient. • • Demonstrate program feasibility and develop program structure • Prototype combination of symmetric multimodal HCI with model-based code generation technology • Determine feasibility of program leading to mixed-initiative high-productivity environments • Identify technology gaps and refine DARPA-hard program challenges. • Demonstrate on a DoD-relevant domain • Survey and position with respect to previous research Multi-modal User Interfaces can now integrate sketch, gesture,& natural language to capture design, rationale more naturally. Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces enable symmetric collaboration between human and computer-based designers. Adaptive, Domain-Specific Model-Based Software Engineering tools enable flexible collaboration at a human level of abstraction. END-OF-SEEDLING GOAL NEW INSIGHTS Symmetric multimodal interaction brings intelligence to model-based development Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only

2. Review – Purpose of this Seedling • The penta and SOW identify the area of “Intelligent Development Environments” and make conjectures about: • Current SOA in IDEs and what is possible (in terms of mixed-initiative design and multimodal interfaces that make this possible) • The supposed technical challenges in doing that • Seedling seeks to test those conjectures by marrying advances in areas that may be convergent in this space: MIDOS and PAMS. • Investigate those conjectures more completely, and arrive at a focused set of technical challenges that form the basis of a new program • We should guard against getting too fascinated with a demo and keep our eye on this goal • Bottom Line: The purpose of the seedling is to create a new program initiative brief Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only

3. My Goal for Today • Get sharper focus on our original conjectures: • The nature of the technical challenges, and which focused challenges will form the basis for a program? • How far can we reach in terms of operational capability in the scope of a program? • What is the potential operational payoff? • What options for demonstrating the concept and measuring success? • Determine whether we are getting any closer to filling in the blanks of a new initiative briefing that will get across to the Director and others on a tech review panel • A “Scientific American” statement of the technical goals of the program • A clear connection to compelling operational need • A convincing case for how this can be achieved • Exchange ideas, resolve questions, set goal for next IPR • Discuss potential workshop Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only

4. The Heilmeyers… • What is the problem, why is it hard? • How is it solved today? • What is the new technical idea; why can we succeed now? • What is the impact if successful? • How will the program be organized? • How will intermediate results be generated? • How will you measure progress? • What will it cost? Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only

5. “DARPA-Hard” Questions /Technical Insights? Lowering the barrier to rationale capture as a means of addressing the questions on the left • grounding complex abstract diagrams in sufficient meaning to support the design task; • Determining how complex specifications can be segmented in ways that are functionally meaningful for reasoning and dialog; • determining what kind of human-computer interactions are needed at any given moment and mediating that interaction effectively; • determining the HCI principles that lead to productivity enhancements not attainable with model-based software engineering tools alone (including the advanced versions produced in the current DMT-SWP program). • Is there a body of kn about MBSE applicable across domains? • Dev of DSMLs suggest any common body of language, lexicon,… • How wide a variety of specification forms to consider/// tabular, text, graphical • Graphical models vs. behavioral specifications? How do we get the benefits of graphical structural models for behavioral specs? Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only

6. Can we make computers a design partner in MBSE task? What does it take to do this? What are the challenges preventing that from being realized?