Specification of the interoperation of components in a system-of-systems is a current research problem. Though the literature has identified several means of breaking this problem into levels, the literature also reveals that no single specification scheme can cover all levels of interoperability well. The base to be covered is broad: one needs an overarching model, such as the DoDAF for the military domain, to guide the capture of conceptual detail and at the same time provide a low-level base set of implementation specific details, such as DEVS, and protocols, like HLA, that create the study system.
This paper will describe a framework that will merge the various specification schemes and apply a methodology to define the structural variances between components. An example of multiresolution modeling will demonstrate the application of the methodology.
[1] Zeigler B. Theory of Modeling and Simulation. John Wiley and Sons; 1976.
2.
[2] Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks & Information Integration, NII). Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF); 2003. Available from: htp://www.defenselink.mil/nii
3.
[3] Tolk A, Muguira JA. The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM). In: Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
4.
[4] Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI); 1998 Mar 30; C4ISR Architectures Working Group. Available from: htp://www.c3i.osd.mil/org/cio/i3/
5.
[5] NATO Allied Data Publication 34 (ADatP-34); Mar 2003; NATO C3 Technical Architecture (NC3TA), Version 4.0. Available from: htp://www.nato.ino/docu/standard.htm
6.
[6] Turnitsa C. Extending the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Summer Computer Simulation Conference; IEEE CS Press; 2005.
7.
[7] Page EH, Briggs R, Tufarolo JA. Toward a Family of Maturity Models for the Simulation Interconnection Problem. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2004.
8.
[8] Tolk A. XML Mediation Services Utilizing Model Based Data Management. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Simulation Conference; 1476–1484, IEEE CS Press; 2004.
9.
[9] Tolk A, Diallo SY. Model Based Data Engineering for Web Services. IEEE Internet Computing.2005; 9(4): 65–70.
10.
[10] Department of Defense Chief Information Office (CIO). Department of Defense Net-Centric Data Strategy; 2003. Available from: www.afei.org/pdf/ncow/DoD_data_strategy.pdf
[12] U.S. Army Modeling & Simulation Executive Council (AMSEC). Minutes of Meeting; 2005 Jul 11; Item 2. Available from: htp://www.amso.army.mil
13.
[13] Hofmann M. Challenges of Model Interoperation in Military Simulations. SIMULATION. 2004; 80: 659–667.
14.
[14] NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO). The NATO Code of Best Practice for Command and Control Assessment; Revision 2002. Command and Control Research Program; NATO Support Series (ISBN 1-893723-09-7). Available from: htp://www.dodccrp.org
15.
[15] Pety MD, Weisel EW. A Composability Lexicon. In: Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, IEEE CS Press; 2003.
16.
[16] Object Model Group (OMG) Unified Modeling Language (UML). Available from: htp://www.omg.org/uml
17.
[17] Kobryn C, Sibbald C. Modeling DoDAF Compliant Architectures: A Telelogic Approach for Complying with the DoD Architecture Framework; 2004. Available from: htp://www.telelogic.com/download/paper/Modeling-DoDAF-WhitePaper.pdf
18.
[18] Object Model Group (OMG) Unified Modeling Language (UML). Available from: htp://www.omg.org/mda
19.
[19] Trbovich S, Reading R. Simulation and Software Development for Capabilities Based Warfare: An Analysis of Harmonized Systems Engineering Processes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2005.
20.
[20] Blake DW, Little C, Morse J. The Navy's Probability of Raid Annihilation Assessment Process Standards & Architecture and Systems Engineering Concept Model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
21.
[21] Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA). EIA-632: Processes for Engineering a System; 1998.
22.
[22] Lee J, Choi M, Jang J, Park Y, Jang J, Ko B. The Integrated Executable Architecture Model Development by Congruent Process, Method, and Tools. In: Proceedings of the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium; Paper 259; CCRP Press; 2005.
23.
[23] Adshead S, Kreitmair T, Tolk A. Definition of ALTBMD Architectures by Applying the C4ISR Architecture Framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2001.
24.
[24] Alberts DS, Hayes RE. Power to the Edge: Command and Control in the Information Age. Command and Control Research Program; CCRP Press; 2003.
25.
[25] Atkinson K. Modeling and Simulation Foundation for Capabilities Based Planning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2004.
26.
[26] Couture M, Duval A. On the Building of a UML Profile for the Description of Army Architectures in the Context of Complex Systems. In: Proceedings of the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium; Paper 124; CCRP Press; 2005.
27.
[27] Tolk A, Solick S. Using the C4ISR Architecture Framework as a Tool to Facilitate V&V for Simulation Systems Within the Military Application Domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
28.
[28] James J. Modeling of Information Dominance in Complex Systems: A System Partitioning and Hybrid Control Framework. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science; 2003.
29.
[29] Tolk A. Avoiding Another Green Elephant-A Proposal for the Next Generation HLA Based on the Model Driven Architecture. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2002.
30.
[30] Tolk A, Muguira JA. M&S within the Model Driven Architecture. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC); Paper 1477; 2004.
31.
[31] deSylva MJ, Lutz RR, Osborne SR. The Application of the DoDAF Within the HLA Federation Development Process. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2004.
32.
[32] Zeigler BP, Fulton D, Hammonds P, Nutaro J. Framework for M&S-Based System Development and Testing in Net-Centric Environment. To be published in ITEA Journal (Nov 2005).
33.
[33] Zeigler BP, Mital S. Enhancing DoDAF with DEVS-Based System Life Cycle Process. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC05); 2005.
34.
[34] Davis PK, Biglow JH. Experiments in Multiresolution Modeling (MRM). RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies; 1998.
35.
[35] Weisel E, Pety M, Mielke R. Computational Complexity for Selecting Components for Composition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
36.
[36] Weisel E, Pety M. A Composability Lexicon. In: Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
37.
[37] Weisel E, Pety M. A Formal Basis for a Theory of Semantic Composability. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
38.
[38] Bowers A, Prochnow DL, Roberts J. JTLS-JCATS: Design of a Multi-Resolution Federation for Multi-Level Training. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability; IEEE CS Press; 2002.
39.
[39] Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS). Available from: htp://www.jfcom.mil/about/fact_jtls.htm
40.
[40] Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation System. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory L-184; Livermore, CA. Available from: htp://www.llnl.gov/str/Shimanmoto.html
41.
[41] Hawkins G. Structural Variance and Other Related Topics in the SHAPE Armour/Anti-Armour Study. In: Huber RK, editor. Systems Analysis and Modeling in Defense-Development, Trends, and Issues. New York: Plenum Press; 1984.
42.
[42] Tolk A. Non-Monotonicities in HLA-Federations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 1999.
43.
[43] Suton PW. Interoperability: A New Paradigm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop; IEEE CS Press; 1999.
44.
[44] Wartik SP, Haugh BA, Loaiza F, Hieb MR. A Methodology for Comparing C4I Data Models and Simulation Object Models. In: Proceedings of the European Simulation Interoperability Workshop; ACM Press; 2001.
45.
[45] Fujimoto RM. Time Management in the High Level Architecture. SIMULATION. 1998; 71(6): 388–400.
46.
[46] Levytskyy A, Kerckhofs EJH. Integration of Simulation Tools and Models in a Collaborative Environment. In: Proceedings of the European Simulation Interoperability Workshop; ACM Press; 2001.
47.
[47] Bowers A, Prochnow DL. Multi-Resolution Modeling in the JTLS-JCATS Federation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability; IEEE CS Press; 2003.
48.
[48] Dryer D, Berbesi H. Evolving DODAF: An Integrated Training Enterprise-Delivery Architecture Framework. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC); Paper 1695; 2004.
49.
[49] Dandashi F, Ang H-W, Bashioum C. Tailoring DODAF to Support a Service Oriented Architecture. OMG Press; 2004.
50.
[50] Chaum E, Hieb MR, Tolk A. M&S and the Global Information Grid. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC); Paper 2450; 2005.
