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 Community Involvement

162 38

• 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