latest in oa innovation and c4isr gordon a hunt, principal – trg systems face advisory board, ucs...
TRANSCRIPT
Latest in OA Innovation and C4ISR
Gordon A Hunt, Principal – TRG Systems
FACE Advisory Board, UCS WG, CDR USN-R
OA Summit, Washington DC.
04 November 2014
Modular Open Systems Approach
(MOSA) with Standard Key
Interfaces
Common Domain
Capabilities via Product-
Lines
Common Domain
Capabilities
Common Data
Capabilities
Common Infrastructur
e
LayeredArchitectures
ModularArchitectures
Ad HocArchitectures
Where we are…OSA - Evolution of DoD Combat Systems
Logical progress of architectural separation of concerns
http://blog.sei.cmu.edu/post.cfm/architectural-evolution-dod-combat-systems-359
What’s the Challenge…
C4I spans a much larger set of systems…
• Not in the same domain • Not managed/funded by the same PM• Leverage different TRFs• Different timelines for integration
and technology refresh cycles
What’s the Challenge…
What makes this hard?
• There isn’t a common interface specification…• Different temporal constraints and requirements… • We can’t standardize on one protocol…• Configuration & implementations vary…
It that is? Something else, at the root?
• It’s the data’s content, context & behavior• It’s an integration scalability problem
What’s been done…
• Where else has content, context and behavior been thoroughly defined?
• Compilers!• Syntax – content• Semantics – context• Operations – behavior
• Consider what’s been done with these rigorous definitions…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compiler.svg#mediaviewer/File:Compiler.svg
What’s been done…
• What made this transform possible?• Machine readable, rigorous, and closed
input, output, and rules specifications• Something like Extended Backus–Naur
Form
• Define “Rigorous”?• Solid mathematical basis &
foundations.• Not just machine readable
• Must be machine understandablehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compiler.svg#mediaviewer/File:Compiler.svg
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
What system architecture property drives/enables understandability?
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integratability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integrateability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Levels of Interoperability: http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/P468106.pdf
Ability to move stuff around. Plugs and sockets, bit and bytes
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integrateability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Levels of Interoperability: http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/P468106.pdf
Many efforts defining domain specific dataAddressing the definition of message (ICD) syntax
How to inform the machine about content of data
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integrateability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• …
Levels of Interoperability: http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/P468106.pdf
Defining what is being said, context and semantics• The meaning of the data, to include representation• NOT – more content to added to the messages
Current progress…
• Modularity • Reusability• Extensibility• Portability• Integrateability• Interoperability
• Technical• Syntactic• Semantic• More…
Levels of Interoperability: http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/P468106.pdf
Get to this in a moment….
Current progress…• FACE™ Architecture
• Data Syntax• Data Semantics• “Rules” of structure
• UCS Working Group• Data Architecture• Content (ICDs)• Context (Structure)• Behavior (Domain)
• Others as well…
Current progress…• FACE™ Architecture
• Data Syntax• Data Semantics• “Rules” of structure
• UCS Working Group• Data Architecture• Content (ICDs)• Context (Structure)• Behavior (Domain)
• Others as well…
Semantics
Syntax
Current progress… An Example
• Two message definitions – talking about the same thing, or not?
enum AlarmLevel { GREEN, RED, YELLOW, NO_STATUS, NORMAL};struct alertType : Header { float x, y, z; double set_angle; AlarmLevel status;};
public final class VehicleStatus implements java.io.Serializable{ public String ID = null; public Position3D_WGS84 location = null; public EngineSpeed_RadiansPerSec speed = null;
public VehicleStatus (String _id, ... ) { .... }
}
??
Current progress… An Example
• Two message definitions – talking about the same thing, or not?
• Demonstrations have shown this to work!• Still more to do, but really exciting.• Interesting with small number of messages, powerful with
1000’s
• ICD Verification & Data Rights • Own the rights things with the right level of detail
Where are we going…
• Pragmatic and Dynamic Interoperability Concerns…
• The ‘data of behavior’ which informs the transformation• Have – Service descriptions and human understandable
forms• Needed – the machine understandable equivalents.
• Its hard, is takes time and there is no magic transform• Take a page from history, it can be done• Have to be rigorous in the rules• We can’t stop current progress