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