xmsf and enabling dod m&s capability
DESCRIPTION
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: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
XMSFand
Enabling DoD M&S Capability
DMSO Perspectiveby
Phil Zimmerman, Associate Director
XMSF SUMMIT
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.
Payoffs: Interoperability and reuse = capability and cost-effectivenessPayoffs: Interoperability and reuse = capability and cost-effectiveness
StreetStreetPlanPlan
OrdinancesOrdinances
BuildingBuildingCodesCodes
Common Technical FrameworkCommon Technical Framework• High Level Architecture• CMMS (common world view) • Data Standards
• Help Desks, Education• Resource repositories (MSRR)• Data sources (e.g., environmental)• VV&A policy and procedures• Communication services• Supporting software/tools
Common ServicesCommon Services
DoD M&S Strategy:An Analogy to City Planning
All simulations and All simulations and
live interfaceslive interfaces
Extending InteroperabilityThe HLA Architecture
• Architecture specifies- Ten Rules which define
relationships among federation components- An Object Model Template
which specifies the formin which simulation elements are described- An Interface Specification
which describes the way simulations interact during operation
Support Utilities
StandardInterface
Interfaces toLive Players
Runtime Infrastructure (RTI)
Simulations
Federation Management Declaration ManagementObject Management Ownership ManagementTime Management Data Distribution Management
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
Critical Factors:Descriptors provided in rules are foundation for reuseCommon descriptors aid common understandingCommon interface aids design and implementation
How We Arrived
• 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
Start with a need and technical conceptExperiment to evolve a standard
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
Semantic Consistency:Common Understanding
• Lexical– Common vocabulary, data types
SEDRIS, UOB, FDMS• Syntactic
– Common structures, data deliveryRTI, 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
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?
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?
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