Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework XMSF Overview

1
Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework
(XMSF) Overview
C4I Forum, 2002 Fall SIW, Orlando Florida
Don Brutzman and Michael Zyda Naval Postgraduate
School Mark Pullen, George Mason University
(GMU) Katherine L. Morse, SAIC
2
Topics

• XMSF precepts, motivation, problems, definition
• Workshop synopsis
• Symposium synopsis
• Opportunities C4I, MS, Web
• Path forward

3
XMSF precepts

• Web-based technologies can provide an extensible
  modeling and simulation architecture, to support
  a new generation of interoperable applications
• Simulation support is needed for operational
  warfighting capabilities
• XML-based architecture can provide a bridge
  between emerging rehearsal/reality/replay
  requirements and open/commercial Web standards
• Web best tech strategy best business case

4
Motivation

• Transformational technologies are needed to scale
  up defense modeling/simulation to meet real-world
  needs
• Can we use Web technologies as common framework?
• Dynamic capabilities, open standards, Web
  business model provide lift to support government
  and commercial success
• Easy use and open extensibility for developers
  and users, fueling rapid growth of interoperable
  simulations
• Bring defense modeling/simulation/tactical
  support into mainstream of enterprise-wide
  best-business practices

5
Problems

• Current approaches are not compatible with
  effective use of emerging Web technologies
• Military modeling simulation has little or no
  apparent impact on warfighters daily tactical
  operations
• Diverse simulations do not scalably interoperate
  with warfighting systems
• Global systems are not yet possible without
  connection to common interoperable framework
• physical and logical stovepipes prevent this

6
XMSF Definition

• The Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework
  (XMSF) is defined as a set of Web-based
  technologies and services, applied within an
  extensible framework, that enables a new
  generation of modeling simulation (MS)
  applications to emerge, develop and interoperate.
• Current work in Web Services appears to be an
  appropriate basis for organizing and composing
  the many necessary capabilities of Web/XML and
  Internet/networking needed for MS applications.

7
Planning for change, quick start

• Technical Challenges Workshop
• NPS, August 19-20, focused expert efforts
• Strategic Opportunities Symposium
• George Mason University, September 6 welcome!
• Immediately precedes SIW for good participation
• Broader feedback right track? what else is
  needed?
• Exemplar Demonstrations
• I/ITSEC demos, Orlando Florida December 2-5
• Next steps for XMSF
• another workshop this fall? what else is needed?

8
XMSFTechnical Challenges Workshop

• Monterey California USA, 19-20 August 2002
• preceding annual NPS MOVES Open House
• Goal initial technical survey and assessment
• Modeling Simulation via Web technologies
  feasible?
• XMSF white paper provided basis for discussion
• Report back to this group for strategic planning
• Diverse technical experts invited in 3 areas
• Web/XML, Internet/network, Modeling Simulation
• Point papers for undiluted snapshots of key ideas

9
Workshop strategy 1

• How to solve big problems? Divide conquer.
• Three technical perspectives
• Web technologies, XML
• Internet and Networking
• Modeling and simulation (MS)
• White paper lays out initial basic framework
• please use, extend, correct, disagree

10
Workshop strategy 2

• How to solve big problems? Divide conquer.
• Triage approach for all three technical areas
• What do we agree on determine consensus
• What do we disagree on more work needed
• What are most important directions for further
  work
• Document workshop and symposium results
• Most important outcomes may be education,
  direction

11
Web/XML group

• Moderator
• Dr. Don Brutzman, NPS
• Erik Chaum NUWC
• Rob Glidden Sun
• Jack Jackson,
• TRAC Monterey
• Dr. David Kwak, MITRE

• Recorders
• Steve Fouskarinis SAIC, Curt Blais NPS
• Dr. Francisco Loaiza, IDA
• Dr. Edward Sims, Vcom3D
• Dr. Chenghui Luo, Fraunhofer CRCG
• Phil Zimmerman, DMSO

12
Internet/networking group

• Moderator
• Dr. Mark Pullen, GMU
• Dr. Rusty Baldwin, AFIT
• Scott Bradner, IESG, Harvard
• Dr. Suleyman Guleyupoglu, NRL
• Dr. Sue Numrich, DMSO

• Recorders
• Don McGregor, NPS
• Dave Laflam, AMSO
• Denny Moen GMU
• Dr. Steve Carson, GSC Assoc.
• Dr. Norbert Schiffner, CRCG
• Dr. Marcelo Zuffo, University Sao Paolo
• two last-minute drops
• Dr. Sandeep Singhal Reefedge
• Dr. Mikel Petty ODU

13
Modeling simulation group

• Moderator
• Dr. Katherine Morse, SAIC
• Dr. Mike Bailey USMC TECOM
• Dr. Paul Diefenbach, OpenWorlds
• Dr. Niki Deliman Goerger, USA ERDC
• Alan Hudson, Yumetech

• Recorders
• Joerg Wellbrink, NPS
• Simon Goerger, NPS
• Dr. Kalyan S. Perumalla, Georgia Inst. of
  Technology
• Dr. Dick Puk, Intelligraphics
• Dr. Cristina Russo dos Santos, Eurecom,
  University Toulon
• Dr. Andreas Tolk, ODU
• Dr. Sanjeev Trika, Intel

14
Application Domains

• Discrete-event and constructive simulations
• Virtual worlds and continuous simulations
• Multi-agent systems
• Interactive, man-in-the-loop, equipment-in-loop
  systems
• Live and virtual entities, mixed seamlessly
• Distance learning for interaction among
  participants
• Audio and video (both needed for WAN testing
  anyway)
• Multiformat whiteboard recording and playback
• Teaching and training compatibility via ADL SCORM
  
• Simulations usable for training, also training
  for simulation use

15
Top-Level Requirements 1

• Ability to interact directly and scalably over
  the network
• Compatible with Web architecture and technologies
• Highly distributed
• Not necessarily connected to Web, but using Web
  technologies
• Use by humans and software agents equally
  important
• Support for composable, reusable model components
• Root data-structure representations specified
  using XML schema
• Representations in other languages autogenerated
  directly
• Connection point between syntax and RDF Schema,
  semantics

16
Top-Level Requirements 2

• Simple learning curve and repeatable examples
• Support users and developers
• Modular structure
• Ability to directly interact with network layer
• Plug-ins connecting into kernel plug-ins at run
  time
• Standards-based
• IEEE, ISO, W3C, IETF, Web3D
• Integrate with tactical systems
• Augment group shared picture of operations
• Producers and consumers
• System life-cycle patterns, repeatability

17
Top-Level Requirements 3

• Support for XML and multiple programming
  languages
• Dynamically extensible at run time always on
• software hardware, diversity includes backwards
  compatibility
• loose coupling, verification/validation, repair,
  graceful degradation, redundancy, etc.
• Security levels consistent with current Web
  technology
• Public library of useful reusable components
• Cross-platform capabilities
• Rendering support and architectural hooks for
  visual simulations

18
Top-Level Requirements 4

• Expected computer performance
• Small, fast, inexpensive computers
• Reconnect via GRID computing (distributed
  operating systems)
• Expected network performance
• Modems through ADSL (0.05-1.5 Mbps) for limited
  participation
• 10 - 1Gbps for local participation
• OC3 up through gigabit wide-area networking
• Backward compatibility with existing
  architectures and protocols, where it makes sense
• e.g. DIS, HLA/RTI, ALSP, probably many others

19
Workshop Observations

• Significant agreement, consensus on principles
• Web technologies for networked modeling
  simulation appears to be feasible and useful
• Lots of different ideas about how to execute
• Interestingly, few (if any) contradictions

20
Workshop Conclusions 1, 2

• Close working relationship across all three
  technical areas will continue to be needed
• Web / XML, Internet/networking, and MS
• Benefit from broad technical insights
• Interrelated goals and concerns
• XMSF approach must be further refined from a
  high-level concept to definitive technical
  recommendations, practices, and applications
• Few (if any) new specifications are needed to
  proceed

21
Workshop Conclusions 3, 4

• Need exemplar applications identified, initiated
• Collectively and clearly demonstrate the
  application potential of XMSF concepts
• A number of existing and emerging programs were
  discussed as possible contexts for the exemplars
• Web Services appear are promising area for
  focusing future work

22
Workshop Conclusions 5

• Security concerns are cross-cutting for all
  areas, must be addressed throughout design
  process
• or unforeseen vulnerabilities occur
• Approximately equal number of Web-related
  technical challenges solutions presented
• Likely feasible but recurring throughout
  lifecycle
• Independent of classical physical/military
  security
• Additional group-specific topics follow.

23
Symposium summary

• Friday September 6, GMU Fairfax Virginia
• Keynote address by Anita Jones
• MS is the next killer app for the Web
• Diverse speakers are presenting their considered
  opinions, in reaction to the workshop whitepaper
• We continue to work the white paper report
• but the lions share is in your hands ?

24
Symposium speakers

• Keynote MS and Web
• Anita Jones
• XMSF Workshop Results
• Brutzman, Pullen, Morse, Zyda
• Technologists' Perspectives
• Rob Glidden, Sun
• Sanjeev Trika, Intel
• Philip Dodds, ADL
• Walt Zimmers, DTRA

• Tactical Warfighter Support
• Mike Bailey, MCMSMO
• Dana Paterson, FORCENet
• Phil Zimmerman, DMSO
• Programmatic Perspective
• MAJ David Laflam, AMSO
• Steve Swenson, NAVMSMO
• Alan Murashige, HQ USAF

25
Opportunities C4I, MS, Web

• Many common goals
• C4I plenary, Rob Walker DISA COE program manager
• C4ISR/Simulation Technical Reference Model report
• Navy night, Gene Layman NRL
• Web interoperability can expose legacy systems
  without major retooling of internals
• change connectivity challenge 1-N vice N-N
• Semantic interoperability possible, via oporder
  messaging
• NPS exercising XML-MTF, Generic Hub (LC2IEDM),
  X3D, SVG
• NUWC can ingest same XML oporder into submarine
  CCS

26
Path forward

• Various XMSF steps
• Report, demos, meetings, discussions, papers
• I/ITSEC, Web3D Symposium, 2003 Spring SIW, Euro
  SIW
• Mail lists
• Early adopter partnerships and shared strategies
• Joint workshop on components/composability likely
• Joint groups, SISO and Web3D? All feedback
  welcome.

27
Contacts

• http//www.MovesInstitute.org/xmsf
• Don Brutzman brutzman_at_nps.navy.mil
  831.656.2149
• Michael Zyda zyda_at_nps.navy.mil
  831.656.2305
• Don McGregor mcgredo_at_nps.navy.mil
  831.656.4090
• Andrzej Kapolka akapolk_at_nps.navy.mil
  831.656.2253
• Mark Pullen mpullen_at_gmu.edu
  703.993.1538
• Katherine Morse morsek_at_saic.com 858.826.6728
• Steve Fouskarinis steven.fouskarinis_at_saic.com 858
  .826.4407

28
Backup slides
29
Related work workshop on software
componentization

• July 2002, DMSO, DC
• two dozen attendees, POC Phil Zimmerman
• SIW paper available 02F-SIW-052
• Consensus seemed to be
• components are a worthwhile approach to consider
  for improving composability and interoperability
  of diverse interacting simulations
• component technology is sufficiently mature and
  well defined for building exemplars

30
Web Services