base object model (bom) product development group a b c x conceptual federate federation
TRANSCRIPT
Base Object Model (BOM)Product Development Group
A
B
C
X
Conceptual Federate
Federation
BOM History
1998 20022000 2003
ReferenceFOM
StudyGroup
BOMMethodology
Strawman
SRML
Rapidly composableand scalable
M&S
2001
BOMStudyGroup
1996
RPRFOM
20101999
HLA1516
FOM“piece parts”
(FEDEP, OMT) BOMBOMPDG PDG
2004
SISO-STD-003-xxxxBOM Template Spec
BOM Spec
Guidance DocSISO-STD-003.1-xxxx
Guide for BOM Use and Implementation
2006 …
• Tools• Components
• Libraries
HLA1516 Evolve
DIS HLA
1990
FEDEP1516
C M S E
Protocol Oriented
WSDL
Schemas
XSLTDTD
SOAP
Object-Based Oriented Component/Service Oriented
• BOM PDG Officers– Larry Root (Chair)– Bob Lutz (Vice-Chair)– Jane Bachman (Secretary)– Chris Rouget (SAC TAD)
• DG Team– Paul Gustavson (Lead Editor)– Björn Löfstrand– Steve Goss– Steve Reichenthal– Roy Scrudder– Jake Borah– Tram Chase
• Assigned Reviewers– George Hughes– Staffan Löf– Mark McAuliffe– Chris Rouget– Reed Little– Mark Biwer
Officers, Editors, Reviewers
BOM PDG Goals and Activities Develop a Specification for Base Object Models Develop a Specification for Base Object Models
The open standardization of BOMs is essential Broad participation required to mature the BOM specification to a
point where it can survive the Balloting & Acceptance Processes Specification format will follow:
• SISO-ADM-005-Draft-V0.8 Guide For SISO Standards Style Based on SAC TC 20 May 2003 meeting, go-ahead given to publish
standard as a “Trial-Use” Standard and conduct a trial use“Trial Use” Period Completed Summer 2004“Trial Use” Period Completed Summer 2004
Effort includes a Guidance Document and a Specification numbered as follows:
• SISO-STD-003-xxxx SISO-STD-003-xxxx Base Object Model (BOM) Template SpecificationBase Object Model (BOM) Template Specification• SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide For BOM Use and ImplementationGuide For BOM Use and Implementation: :
– addresses the “how to” in generating BOMs and the “how to” in piecing them together into BOM-assemblies in order to produce a SOM and/or FOM
BOM PDG Development Process
3 Standard Put Out forCommunity Review via SISO Reflectors 3
4 DG Collates Comments and FormulatesResponses
4
5 PDG Meeting Held To Formally AdjudicateComments and Responses
5
6 DG Incorporates Only Approved CommentsInto Standard 6
7 AR Team Reviews Updated Standard for Verification of Changes
7
1 Assigned Reviewers (AR) Team Nominated and Approved
1
2 DG Stands Up Baseline Standard
2
Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG DeemsReady for Balloting
9
9
BOMSISO-STD-003.1
DevelopmentCycle
8 Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG DeemsReady for “Trial-Use” Period (Complete)
8
- Start Process April 12th, 2003 - Round 1 (30 days) – October 17th, 2003 – 136 Comments (71t/65e)- Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 18th, 2004 – 112 Comments (50t/62e)- Trial Use (120 days) – July 23rd, 2004 – 42 Comments (24t/17e)- Round 3 (30 days) – Feb 11th, 2005 – 132 Comments (79t/53e)- Round 4 (20 days) – July 5th, 2005 – 23 Comments (16t/7e)- Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9th, 2005 – 141 Comments (51t/90e)
SISO-STD-003 BOM SpecTotal of 568 Comments Addressed
SISO-STD-003.1 BOM GuideTotal of 437 Comments Addressed
- Start Process May 25th, 2004- Round 1 (30 days) – July 23rd, 2004 – 75 Comments (30t/45e)- Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 11th, 2005 – 202 Comments (64t/138e)- Round 3 (20 days) – July 5th, 2005 – 13 Comments (3t/10e)- Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9th, 2005 – 137 Comments (25t/112e)
Averaging 4-months / Spiral or Review Cycle t-technical e-editorial
Ballot Pool
The Ballot Group Notification went out Aug 14, 2004 and Closed Sept 14, 2004 38 Ballot Pool Members Ballot Pool is Balanced in All Categories:
• Representation Categories: Commercial, Government, Academic– Each must make up at least 10% but not more than 75% of Pool– We have: C=52.6% G=26.3% A=21.1%We have: C=52.6% G=26.3% A=21.1%
• Organization – No one organization shall represent more than 25% of a representation category– Our Break Down is on the next slide w/ Highest Representation Coming Our Break Down is on the next slide w/ Highest Representation Coming
from SimVentions at 15% of Commercialfrom SimVentions at 15% of Commercial
• Interest Categories: User, Developer, General– No Interest category shall exceed 50% of the balloting group– We have: U=34.2% D=44.7% G=21.1%We have: U=34.2% D=44.7% G=21.1%
Ballot Pool was Sent to SAC and Approved
• US DoD– ARMY– NAVY– AIR FORCE– DMSO
• Defense Research & Development Canada
• Ministry of Defense UK• IEEE• Academia
– University of Texas - Applied Research Lab
– John Hopkins University - Applied Physics Lab
– University of Pennsylvania– Carnegie Mellon University -
System Engineering Institute– Naval Postgraduate School– Old Dominion University
• Host of Large & Small Business
• Boeing• SAIC• Raytheon• GD-AIS• BAE• BMH• AEgis• SimVentions• SRI• TAC-Eng• PiTCH• Preforce Consultants
• USA• United
Kingdom• Sweden• Germany• Canada• France
OrganizationsOrganizations CompaniesCompanies CountriesCountries
Overall PDG Is EvenMore Diverse!
Overall PDG Is EvenMore Diverse!
Ballot Pool
Ballot ResultsOverall Ballot Results:
•36 of the 38 ballot pool members responded. That is a 94.74% overall response from the balloters.•We had 35 accept/reject votes and 1 abstention (Guide)•We had 36 accept/reject votes (Standard) •This means the product ballot process is valid because we have met the two requirements per SISO BPDP
Section 4.3.6: minimum ballot return percentage of 75% – we hit 94.74%; and, less than 30% abstention – we had 1 abstention (2.63%) on the Guidance Document.
From this point forward, the percentage-computations are to be based on the total number of accept/reject votes received (per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6) – which is 35 for the Guidance and 36 for the Specification.
For the Guidance Document:•17 of the 35 voted to accept (48.57%)•17 of the 35 voted to accept w/comment (48.57%)•Overall 34 of 35 votes for acceptance (97.14%) •1 of the 35 voted to reject with comment (2.86%)•Ballot result for the Guidance document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot: at least 65% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.14%
For the Specification:•16 of the 36 voted to accept. That is a 44.44% response to accept•19 of the 36 voted to accept with comment. That is a 52.77% response to accept with comment•The above two provides an overall 35 of 36 votes for acceptance. That is a 97.21% response to accept•1 of the 36 voted to reject with comment. That is a 2.77% response to reject with comment•This means that the ballot result for the Specification document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6: at least 75% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.21%.
• Spec– 18 different commenters– 141 comments
• 29 Basic Editorial comments (#1)• 58 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5)• 50 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2)• 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3)• 3 General comments (#4)
• Guide– 14 different commenters– 137 comments
• 66 Basic Editorial comments (#1)• 38 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5)• 24 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2)• 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3)• 8 General comments (#4)
• Total– 278 comments
Ballot Comments
All 278 Comments Have Been Successfully Adjudicated per BPDP RulesAll 278 Comments Have Been Successfully Adjudicated per BPDP Rules
BOM (Base Object Model) PDGBallot Successful – Comments Adjudicated – Final Submission Package In – SAC/EXCOM Approved!!
Submit Products to SAC and EXCOM for ‘Approval to Ballot’ Sept’05 – SAC/TADSept’05 – SAC/TAD
Formulate The Ballot Group Aug 15 to Sept 14 – SAC/TAD Aug 15 to Sept 14 – SAC/TAD
(30-day minimum – SAC Approval Received)(30-day minimum – SAC Approval Received) Sept’05 – PDG Face-to-Face - Fall’05 SIW – PANEL SessionSept’05 – PDG Face-to-Face - Fall’05 SIW – PANEL Session Oct’05 – Release V0.12 as candidate standardsOct’05 – Release V0.12 as candidate standards
Conduct The Initial Ballot Nov’05 – TAD/PDG (30-day) - Both Spec and GuideNov’05 – TAD/PDG (30-day) - Both Spec and Guide
Resolve Ballot Group Comments Nov/Dec’05 PDG Comments Received & ProcessedNov/Dec’05 PDG Comments Received & Processed Jan’06 – PDG Face-to-Face and Teleconference, all comments Jan’06 – PDG Face-to-Face and Teleconference, all comments
successfully adjudicatedsuccessfully adjudicated Conduct Re-Circulation Ballot
Not NeededNot Needed Closure Activities
Feb’06 – SAC/TAD/PDGFeb’06 – SAC/TAD/PDG
Submit Balloted Product to SACand EXCOM for ‘Approval asSISO Product’
Mar’06 – TAD/SAC/EXCOMMar’06 – TAD/SAC/EXCOM Post SISO Community
Announcement April’06 – SACApril’06 – SAC
BP
DP
Ste
p 3
BP
DP
Ste
p 4
BPDP
SISO-STD-003-2006!SISO-STD-003-2006!
BOM Template Specification
SISO-STD-003.1-2006!SISO-STD-003.1-2006!
Guide for BOM
Use & Implementation
PDG Session – Spring’06 SIW
Tuesday, 8:00am-12:00
Room - Salon 6A
What’s Next – The SSG &
Managing Steps 5 and 6
03S SIWPDG Kick-off
Aug 21st 2003DG Face-to-FaceGuide & Vol 1
03F SIWEstablishAssignedReviewers
04S SIWGuideVol/Vol II
July 2004DG/PDGFace-to-FaceGuide/Vol/Vol II
04F SIWVol 1 In Trial UseGuide ReviewedTools Available
05S SIWGuide & SpecAdjudicationBOM Tutorial
06S SIWGuide & Specification Completes SAC/EXCOM ReviewSISO Standardization Achieved!BOM Tutorial
Overall Schedule
Oct 2003, ReleaseVol 1 for Review(1)www.boms.info established
Jan 2006Face-to-Face and TCBallot Comment Adjudication completed
May 2004Release GuideFor Review(1)
Developed & PresentedBOM Tutorial
Jan 2005DG/PDG Face-to-FaceGuide & Vol I & Vol II
Vol I and IIunited into aSingleSpecification
RPR-BOMsavailable June 2005
EuroSIWBOM/HLA-E Coord
July 2005Spec Review(4)Guide Review(3)
Nov/Dec 05Ballot ConductedBallot Successful
Mar 2006 Product Approval Packagesent to SAC and EXCOM
Feb 2004, ReleaseVol 1 for Review(2)
July 2004 Release Guide for Review(1)Vol I Enters Trial Use
BOMworksTool Available
Feb 2005, ReleaseSpec Review(3)Guide Review(2)
05F SIWGuide & SpecBallot PoolFormedBOM Tutorial
Related BOM Efforts• Web-based Survey• http://www.boms.info/blog • http://www.boms.info website
– BOM Specs & Related Documents– BOM Information– BOM History– BOM Current Activities– BOM PDG Reflector– BOM FAQ
• BOM Tutorial• Resource CDs• RPR BOMs• Tools
– BOMworks™ – Visual OMT™
• WinterSim’04• I/ITSEC ’04 Conference• 2005 EuroSIW
Give us your Input and Thoughts!
Affect the Direction of BOMs
Give us your Input and Thoughts!
Affect the Direction of BOMs
Go! – Read! – Interact!
Get Answers!
Ask Questions!
Provide Input!
This is The Library
This is The Library
Go! – Read! – Interact!
Get Answers!
Ask Questions!
Provide Input!
This is The Library
This is The Library
Get Training! Get Training!
Tools are Arriving!Use Them – Build Them – Improve Them
Tools are Arriving!Use Them – Build Them – Improve Them
Wider Visibility!Wider Visibility!
Fed
erat
e(S
OM
)
BOMAssembly
BOM 1
BOM 3
BOM n
CompositeInterface
Composition
Sim / System A
Representation Fed
erat
ion
(FO
M)Federate B
Federate X
Federate A
Agg
rega
tion
Model#1
Model#2
Model#3
Model#n
- or -
- or -Theate
r Warfa
re
Representa
tion
BOM 2
BOMs are designed for enabling composability, providing extensibility, facilitating interoperability, improving manageability, and encouraging understandibility.
BOM Palette - x
Choose what fits conceptual model?
A
B
C
X
State MachinesPattern of Interplay
Events
User Requirements
Simulation Components
Simulation Systems• foms • federates
BOM – a piece part of a conceptual model, simulation object model, or federation object model, which can be used as a building block in the development and/or extension of a simulation or federation.
Weapons
Effect
Radio
Comm
s
Repair
Resupply
Detect /
Jam
Definition Concept Products
Illustration
Improving Composability in the World of Modeling and SimulationUsing Base Object Models (BOMs) as Building Blocks