Standards Plenary

1
Standards Plenary

• Standards Activity Committee

2
Standards

• Our Middle Name

3
SISO Mission Statement
SISOs mission is To provide an open forum that
promotes the interoperability and reuse of models
and simulations through the exchange of ideas,
the examination of technologies, and the
development of standards.
SISO Vision Document SISO-ADM-004-2001
4
Organization
The SAC provides oversight for SISO product
development activities and has primary
responsibility of overseeing the development of
these products to support interoperability and
reuse in the MS community. The SAC conducts its
development activities through a number of
Product Development Groups (PDGs), which operate
as strongly focused, task organized groups
concentrating on the development of
consensus-based standards and their related
products.
SISO PP SISO-ADM-002-2001
5
SAC Members

• Michael J. OConnor Chair
• Allison Griffin Vice Chair
• Tom Mullins Secretary
• Michelle Bevan
• Chris Bouwens
• Peggy Gravitz
• Jean-Louis Igarza

• Robert Leach CC Vice Chair
• Mike Lightner
• Reed Little
• Gene Wiehagen
• Chris Rouget

Van Lowe IST Support
6
Elections

• Consider running for the SAC
• 4 current members are term limited

7
SISO Products

• Balloted Products
• Standards
• Guidance
• Non-balloted Products
• Reference
• Administrative

8
SISO Balloted Products

• Standards Products are formally approved items
  that reflect consensus agreements on products,
  practices, or operations, as required, by
  simulation industry applications. SISO Standards
  are to be stable, well understood, technically
  competent, and have multiple independent
  interoperable implementations. In addition they
  should enjoy significant public support, and be
  recognizably useful in some or all parts of the
  simulation community. Compliance with a SISO
  Standard requires conformance with all of the
  shalls in the Standard.
• Guidance Products are items that can control the
  development, integration, and use of common
  reference data in some portion of the Modeling
  and Simulation community. Guidance Products are
  similar to Standards in that they describe SISO
  Best and Current Practices. A recommended
  development process is an example of a Guidance
  Product.

SISO PP SISO-ADM-002-2001
9
SISO Non-balloted Products

• Reference Products are sources of information
  that provide a passive input to models and
  simulations. Reference Products may also be an
  aid to research. Reference Products include
  reports prepared by Study Groups, Data
  Dictionaries, Lexicons and the SIW Proceedings.
• Administrative Products are developed by SISO to
  guide the operations and practices of the
  organization. Examples of Administrative
  Products are the SISO Vision document and the
  SISO Policies and Procedures.

SISO PP SISO-ADM-002-2001
10
Value of SISO Process

• Process is well documented
• Process is faster than other standards
  organizations
• Process uses a web-based balloting system

11
SISO Balloted Products

• Approved SISO Standards
• SISO-STD-001-2000 Realtime Platform Reference
  Federation Object Model
• IEEE Standards
• IEEE 1278
• IEEE 1516

12
Balloted Products Development Process

• BPDP provides direction on the development of
  SISO balloted products
• It does not cover non-balloted products
• Builds on PP
• Provides specific SAC guidance

Every PDG does not have to reinvent the process
13
BPDP

• The BPDP is a comprehensive document
• Input from a broad range of experts
• Current past SAC members
• HLA developers
• RPR FOM PDG
• FEDEP PDG
• SEDRIS PDGs

14
Six Step Process
SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
15
Step 1 Activity Approval

• Complete SISO Product Nomination (PN)
• Review PN to assess impact on SISO
• Approve Product Nomination

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
16
Step 2 Product Development

• Appoint TAD and interim PDG Chair
• Launch development activity
• Elect Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, DGs
• Establish development schedule
• Produce the product or product component
• Monitor PDG activities
• Submit draft product to SAC and EXCOM for
  'Approval to Ballot'

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
17
Step 3 Product Balloting

• Send initial balloting announcement
• Establish balloting pool
• Send second balloting announcement
• Prepare product and balloting package
• Conduct ballot
• Determine ballot results
• Resolve ballot group member comments
• Conduct re-circulation ballot (if required)
• Close balloting process
• Announce ballot results

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
18
Step 4 Product Approval

• Submit balloted product(s) and supporting
  material to the SAC for review
• Review balloted product(s) and supporting
  material for compliance with PDG charter and SISO
  Product development procedures
• Approve product(s) and recommend product(s)
  disposition
• Forward package to the EXCOM for approval
• Accept product(s) as a SISO Product
• Notify SAC that product is ready for distribution
• Post announcement to the SISO community via the
  SISO ADMIN reflector

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
19
Step 5 Distribution and CM

• Conduct initial CM on new SISO Product (log
  product and provide appropriate number according
  to the SISO Product Numbering Guide)
• Store approved SISO Product(s) in the SISO
  Document Library
• Distribute new SISO Product
• Maintain revisions as required

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
20
Step 6 Periodic Review

• Conduct Periodic Reviews
• Determine course of action for SISO Product(s)
  (Reaffirm, Revise or Withdraw)
• If periodic review decision is to revise, then
  identify current sponsor/proponent (after 5 years
  could have changed) willing to revise if
  necessary
• If periodic review decision is to revise, then
  revise SISO Product(s)

SISO BPDP SISO-ADM-003-2002
21
Role of SAC

• Review Product Nomination
• Provide PDG guidance on process
• Answer PDG questions

22
Role of PDGs

• PDGs develop the product (step 2)
• The PDG guides the product through balloting
  (step 3)
• The PDG presents the product to the SAC for
  approval (step 4)
• Any SISO member may join a PDG
• PDGs have elected officers

23
Product Nomination

• The SISO Product Nomination form is available
  on-line at
• http//www.sisostds.org/stdsdev/tracking/ProposeAb
  stract.cfm
• The PN form has fields for the data required by
  the PP and BPDP
• Downloadable forms are also available

24
Study Groups

• SISO Study Groups are chartered to answer
  question of interest to the MS community
• SGs can be a first step to a PDG
• Discuss requirements for a product
• Explore existing material related to the proposed
  product
• Create a Product Nomination

25
Numbering SISO Products

• SISO has a standard for numbering products
• SISO-ADM-001-2001

SISO-ccccc-nnn.ppl-yyyy.v
year version
year the product was approved
addendum letter
part number for additional components
category number
product category STD, GUIDE, REF, ADM
Indicate optional fields
SISO Numbering Procedure SISO-ADM-001-2001
26
PDG and SG Status

• Study Groups
• C4ISR Sim TRM 2
• Conceptual Modeling
• Simulation Reference Markup Language

• Product Development Groups
• Base Object Model
• Environnemental Data Coding Specification
• RPR FOM
• Dynamic Link Compatible HLA API
• Link 16

27
Base Object Model (BOM)Product Development Group

• PDG Officers
• Paul Gustavson Acting Interim Chair
• Larry Root Proposed Chair
• Bob Lutz Proposed Vice-Chair
• Jane Bachman Proposed Secretary
• PDG Editors
• Paul Gustavson Proposed DG Lead Editor
• Steve Reichenthal
• Steve Goss
• Jean-Louis Igarza ?
• John Hancock ?
• PDG Team Member(s) (Provide a list of
  individuals that are currently or may/should/will
  be involved in the development of this product)
• in addition to the names identified above
• Chris Rouget (SAC TAD)
• Chris Turrell
• Phil Zimmerman
• Chris Stapleton
• Mark McAuliffe
• Katherine Morse

28
Product Type and Description

• Product Type (Standard, Guidance, Reference,
  Administrative)
• Standard Product providing a specification for
  Base Object Models (BOMs)
• Product Description (Provide a brief bullet
  point description of the product and components
  as necessary)
• BOMs are specifically identified in the FEDEP as
  a potential facilitator for providing reusable
  object model components used for rapid
  construction/modification of simulations and
  simulations spaces.
• Open standardization of BOMs is essential for
  establishing a technology capability that
  facilitates
• interoperability,
• reusability and
• composability. 
• A standardized product defining the format and
  syntax specification, based on XML, will be
  defined for describing the basic elements of a
  BOM.
• Additional XML standards (i.e. Schemas) currently
  available will be identified and applied to
  support the various BOM dimensions and BOM
  ontology.
• Composition of individual BOMs for defining a
  simulation or simulation environment produces a
  Mega-BOM. 
• A Mega-BOM carries with it the meta-data
  associated to BOMs plus the dependency and
  interrelationships between BOMs.
• BOM specification should include methodology for
  establishing Mega-BOM based on RAD software
  component philosophy  
• Guidance for transformation a Mega-BOM to a FOM
  (for HLA backward compatibility) to be included

29
Community Description and Need

• MS Community (Describe the MS Community that
  will use and benefit from this product)
• Intended for the distributed simulation community
  including but not limited to those that use the
  HLA
• Operational Viewpoint
• BOMs are anticipated to support military and
  commercial markets in the area of
  experimentation, analysis, training (i.e.
  advanced distance learning), and acquisition
• Communities include defense, education, medical,
  manufacturing and entertainment.
• Technical Viewpoint
• useful to simulation developers who need to
  rapidly compose interoperable simulations and
  simulation environments.
• anticipated that an outcrop of simulation
  component developers will emerge offering
  third-party BOM components for usage and
  distribution.
• Supportive BOM tools and collaborative web
  services are expected to emerge
• Community Need (Provide brief bullet point
  details and discussions for the need in the
  community.)
• Need initially identified within the FEDEP and
  OMT documentation describing need for piece
  parts in composing FOMs and SOMs.
• Reference FOM Study Group recognized the need for
  component-like approach for FOM/SOM development
  (1998).
• Recently, operational community has shown greater
  interest in a component-like approach for
  supporting simulation interoperability activities
• DMSO (Composable MS Workshop summer 2002)
• eXtensible Modeling and Simulation Workshop
  (XMSF)

To allow maximum utility and flexibility,
modeling and simulation environments will be
constructed from affordable, reusable components
interoperating through an open systems
architecture. DMSO Perspective (Vision),
September 2002, Phil Zimmerman
30
Maturity, Schedule and Activities

• Product Maturity (Provide brief bullet points
  on the maturity of the product.)
• BOM concept born within the Reference FOM study
  group in 1998
• BOM SG formed following RFROM SG (finished Spring
  2001)
• Produced Final Report
• Produced BOM Methodology Strawman (BMS)
• BOM SG products and subsequent White Papers are
  basis for standard being proposed
• Other Work being leveraged
• OMT 1516
• Simulation Reference Markup Language (SRML)
• Various XML Standards / Approaches (to support
  various BOM Dimensions)
• Lessons learned / approaches from software
  component world (ActiveX, JavaBeans, VCL/CLX)
• Others MDA, XMSF, XMI, NCES
• Schedule (Major Milestones Provide brief
  schedule of product development milestones.)
• Spring 2003 SIW Formal Kick-off for PDG /
  Drafting Group
• Summer 2003 DG Face-to-Face (location/date TBD)
• Fall 2003 SIW Initial BOM strawman
• Spring 2004 SIW - Community Feedback (CFPs)
• Fall 2004 SIW Push for Community Balloting
• Reviewed Annually for 5 years

31
EDCS PDG (Environmental Data Coding
Specification)

• PDG Officers
• Chair Bob Richbourg
• Vice Chair Dale Miller
• PDG Editors
• Drafting Group Editor Bob Richbourg
• PDG Team Member(s)
• Drafting Group
• Paul Foley
• Annette Jannett
• David Jodeit
• Guy Schiavone
• Total of 84 members of the PDG (subscribers to
  the EDCS PDG reflectors)

32
Product Type and Description

• Product Type (Standard, Guidance, Reference,
  Administrative)
• The EDCS is progressing through development as an
  ISO standard
• The EDCS PDG has developed Reference Standards
  that endorse use of the ISO standard
• Product Description
• Two SIW papers have been produced by the Drafting
  Group
• 00F-SIW-071 Standardizing the Codification of
  Environmental ObjectsThe Environmental Data
  Coding Specification
• Initial review of the 3d working draft ISO EDCS
• 02S-SIW-049 The Environmental Data Coding
  Specification The Standard for Specification of
  Environmental Objects and Properties
• Updates review of EDCS (main properties, features
  and usage example) based on the final ISO Working
  Draft

33
Community Description and Need

• MS Community
• The EDCS is a coding specification used to
  codify all types of environmental data (object
  classification, attributes, and measures)
• The EDCS has been used by many programs to
  encode objects represented in FOM
• The EDCS is the coding scheme used in SEDRIS
  transmittals
• Community Need
• Other codification schemes (e.g., EBV, FACC, )
  have significant content and / or organization
  shortcomings that are overcome in the EDCS

34
Maturity, Schedule and Activities

• Product Maturity
• The ISO EDCS is now a final committee draft
  document and should become recognized as an ISO
  standard within the year - SISO products
  reference and endorse use of that standard
• The EDCS has been used for environmental data
  codification for several years by multiple
  programs
• Schedule
• As the ISO standard becomes more formal
  (progresses from current Committee Draft to
  recognition as ISO standard) PDG activities
  decrease
• PDG schedule closely tied to ISO schedule
• Workshop Activities (Describe what you are
  doing at this workshop.)
• This Workshop Review latest round of PDG
  comments on the current ISO product
• Finalize EDCS PDG activities

35
C4ISR/Sim TRM SG II

• SG Officers
• Chair Allison Griffin
• Vice Chair Tom Hughes
• Secretary Vacant
• SG Editors
• Joe Lacetera
• Andreas Tolk
• Tom Mullins
• SG Team Member(s)
• Members of the C4ISR/Sim TRM reflector!
• Join the reflector if you are interested in this
  effort!

36
Product Type and Description

• Product Type Reference
• Product Description
• Phase I
• An interim report on the TRM actually Use Cases
  submitted as paper 03S-SIW-028.
• Phase II
• Draft framework for a TRM users guide.
• A final report with a further-developed C4ISR/Sim
  TRM
• Planned delivery of a Product Nomination for the
  TRM Guidance Product.

37
Community Description and Need

• MS Community
• The TRM is intended for both the MS and C4ISR
  communities, including, developers and
  technicians.
• Community Need
• Develop a draft standard frame of reference (TRM)
  for interoperability between C4ISR Systems MS
  Systems.

38
Maturity, Schedule and Activities

• Product Maturity
• Draft TRM from 2002 Fall SIW available on SISO
  site
• (SISO-REF-008-2002)
• Uses cases will be presented at the 2003 Spring
  SIW (03S-SIW-028)
• SG II working to develop survey and list of
  organizations to complete the survey.
• Schedule
• Phase I on schedule - Use Cases being presented
  this week.
• Phase II will begin just after the 2003 Spring
  SIW and deliver
• Draft framework for a TRM users guide.
• Final report containing further-developed
  C4ISR/Sim TRM.
• Planned delivery of a Product Nomination for the
  TRM Guidance Product.

39
Workshop Activities

• SG II Meeting right after the Standards Plenary
  in Manatee B!
• 03S-SIW-028 being presented Thursday, C4ISR
  Forum, Paradise F, 1100
• 03S-SIW-014 (proposed changes to draft TRM) being
  presented in the C4I Forum, Paradise F,
  11301200, on Thursday.

40
Simulation Conceptual Modeling Study Group

• Study Group Leader
• Jake Borah (PROC Forum Chair)
• Initial Study Group Member(s)
• Jean-Louis Igarza
• Susan Solick
• Simone Youngblood
• Michelle Bevan

41
Product Type and Description

• Product Type
• SCM SG will produce a study group report
  containing
• Final reports of any study topical sub-group
• Best and most effective practices
• Recommendations to the SISO on the persistent
  management of the topic
• Product Description
• SCM SG will research the use of Conceptual
  Modeling in MS and related information
  technology domains
• Make a data call for readily available empirical
  evidence to create a set of best (most-effective)
  practices
• SCM SG will perform exploratory work into
  establishment of best practices for Conceptual
  Modeling
• Identify and evaluate the significance of the
  topic to the scope of the SISO and interests of
  its members
• Refine existing Conceptual Modeling terminology
• Draft a taxonomy of concepts
• Document relevant techniques and beneficial
  procedures

42
Community Description and Need

• MS Community Potentially Benefiting from SCM SG
• MS sponsors/users
• MS requirement managers
• MS simulation designers
• MS software developers
• MS VVA agents
• Community Need
• A set of Best Practices does not exist for
  Conceptual Modeling
• MS community fragmented on use of terminology
• Novice MS designers, and developers left to
  develop ad hoc solutions for the transformation
  of sponsor/user requirements into simulation
  designs and software code

43
Schedule and Activities

• Schedule
• First Meeting, Wednesday night 1900-2100 in
  Manatee B
• Interim Progress Reports to Euro-SIW and Fall SIW
• Topical Committee Reports at Fall SIW
• Final SCM SG Report at Spring 04 SIW
• Workshop Activities
• This is the kickoff meeting for the SCM SG
• Re-affirming SCM SG Terms of Reference
• Building SCM SG structure

44
SRML Study Group

• SG Officers
• Steve Reichenthal
• TBD
• SG Editors
• TBD
• PDG Team Member(s) (Provide a list of
  individuals that are currently or may/should/will
  be involved in the development of this product)
• Marianela Garcia Lozano
• Ingo Simonis
• Paul Gustavxon
• TBD

45
Product Type and Description

• Product Type (Standards Investigation)
• Determine the practicality of establishing a
  standard means for representing simulation models
  in XML, based on the Simulation Reference Markup
  Language.
• Define the goals, needs, business case, and
  potential benefits for such a standard.
• Specify interrelationships with other standards
  activities such as HLA, BOM, XMSF
• Determine level of interest within the SISO
  community.
• Identify technical opportunities, challenges.
• Product Description (Provide a brief bullet
  point description of the product and components
  as necessary)
• Description of SRML.
• Findings regarding the goals, needs, business
  case, and benefits to the community.
• Findings regarding the level of interest at SISO.
• Specification of the relationship of SRML to HLA,
  BOMs, XMSF, MDA, and other emerging trends, as
  well as technical opportunities, challenges, and
  areas for growth.
• Recommendation to the SISO on the topic.

46
Community Description and Need

• MS Community (Describe the MS Community that
  will use and benefit from this product)
• Those building, or are planning to share, reuse
  or interoperate models based on XML.
• Those wanting to encapsulate behavior in Rapid
  Application Development tools, i.e. Base Object
  Model developers and users.
• Those involved in many information domains, since
  SRML is general-purpose language based on XML.
• Anyone wanting to embed behavior in XML.
• Community Need (Provide brief bullet point
  details and discussions for the need in the
  community.)
• The need for the study arises from the rapidly
  increasing interest and use of XML for modeling
  and simulation.
• The specific need for SRML is to be determined by
  the study group.

47
Maturity, Schedule and Activities

• Product Maturity (Provide brief bullet points
  on the maturity of the product.)
• The SRML product is at production maturity at
  Boeing
• SRML was initially put into production early in
  2001
• Schedule (Major Milestones Provide brief
  schedule of product development milestones.)
• Conduct study between Spring 2003 SIW and Fall
  2003 SIW
• Draft report by June 2003
• Final Report by Sept 2003
• Workshop Activities (Describe what you are
  doing at this workshop.)
• Enlisting SG membership interest
• Making informal measurements of SRML interest
  based on attendance at SG meeting
• Providing information about SRML
• Sharing Terms of Reference with and going over
  plans

48
Realtime PlatformReference (RPR) FOM 2.0
49
PDG Team Members

• PDG Officers
• Chair Richard Schaffer (Lockheed Martin
  Information Systems)
• Secretary Douglas Wood (MÄK Technologies)
• Technical Area Director Michael OConnor (ITT
  Industries)
• PDG Editors
• RPR FOM Graham Shanks (AMS), Mark Rybka (Boeing)
• GRIM Jeff Fischer (AMEWAS), Ron Bertin (Boeing),
  
• PDG Team Member(s)
• Len Granoweter (MÄK), Reed Little (CMU SEI),
  Steve Monson (Boeing), Dr. Peter Ryan (DSTO),
  Steven Sheasby (Raytheon), Grant Tudor (Adacel),
  Chris Turrel (DMSO), Mike Bachmann, Sean Reilly
  (Anteon), and more

50
Product Description

• Product Type Standard
• Description
• A Reference FOM for the Real-time, Platform-level
  simulation community
• Common Foundation Reference FOM
• Complete and extensible FOM providing fundamental
  level of interoperability supported by multiple
  communities
• Based on transitioning the IEEE 1278 family of
  protocols (i.e., DIS) into HLA
• Consists of a FOM and a guidance document
• RPR FOM
• HLA OMT format
• Maintained in Aegis OMDT
• Distribution includes PDF, OMT, XML, .omd, .fed,
  and Word revision history
• Guidance, Rationale, and Interoperability Manual
  (GRIM)
• Microsoft Word and PDF files

51
MS Community Identification

• The RPR FOM supports Realtime platform-level
  simulations
• Initially targeted for those simulations that
  transition from DIS
• Supports new federates with similar requirements

52
Community Need

• DIS encompassed a broad base of existing
  interoperable simulations
• Established data definitions and mechanisms
• Enable gateways between DIS and HLA
• Existing DIS like FOMs either too rigid or not
  complete
• STOW FOM was just PDUs sent as attributes or
  interactions
• Platform-Reference FOM was good start but was
  incomplete and needed refinement

53
Compliance Testing

• GRIM establishes criteria for compliance
• General FOM Guidance and Rational
• Procedures for using object and interaction
  classes
• References to IEEE 1278 documents
• DMSO Federate Compliance testing establishes
  first level of interoperability

54
Product Maturity

• Approach
• Provide an intelligent translation of DIS to a
  Reference FOM
• Dont try to improve DIS beyond what comes
  naturally from the use of HLA features
• Initially strict adherence to DIS content to
  support transition
• Reference FOM concept allows extensions beyond
  what is defined FOM
• Eventually allow adaptation to fully embrace
  capabilities of HLA and changing community
  requirements
• Maturity
• RPR 1.0 IEEE1278.1 -1995 Functionality
• SISO-STD-001-1999 (GRIM) and SISO-STD-001.1-1999
  (RPR FOM)
• RPR 2.0 IEEE1278.1a -1998 Functionality
• Completing assigned review phase
• RPR 3.0 Anticipated DIS 3.0 functionality
• Incorporate ongoing developments and extensions
• Prototypes
• Widely used in MS community for real-time
  platform-level simulations
• Commercial Vendors supporting RPR FOM
  interoperability

55
Product Maturity Continued

• Impact to MS Community
• Facilitate transition of DIS implementations to
  the HLA
• Maintain interoperability among DIS simulations
  once they are transitioned
• Support interoperability of newly developed
  federates with similar requirements
• Facilitate interoperable simulation components
• Commercial vendor support
• Repository of simulation components
• Impact to SISO Community
• Provides focal point for standardizing real-time
  platform-level interoperability issues
• Impact without Product
• Stove pipe FOM solutions that fracture
  interoperability
• Dynamically integrating federations from ground
  up is costly and time consuming
• SIW Forums
• The RPR FOM is of interest to all forums

56
ScheduleProduct Development Milestones

• RPR FOM Version 1.0 completed 11/19/1999
• SISO-STD-001-1999 (GRIM) and SISO-STD-001.1-1999
  (RPR FOM)
• Version 2.0 to be balloted this summer
• 14 draft revisions from January 2000 to present

57
Activities for this Workshop

• Finalize GRIM
• Review FOM
• Vote to move to community balloting?

58
Link 16 Simulation Standard Product Development
GroupSISO-STD-002-V1.0 DRAFT
Adin Burroughs, Chair Link 16 PDG
59
Link 16 PDG Leadership

• PDG Officers
• Adin Burroughs, Northrop Grumman IT
• Link 16 PDG Chair
• Joe Sorroche, TACCSF/ASRCC
• Link 16 PDG Vice Chair
• Dr. Rob Byers, Northrop Grumman IT (DMT
  Standards)
• Link 16 PDG Secretary

• PDG Editors
• Dr. Rob Byers
• lead editor
• Adin Burroughs
• Usage Section assistant editor
• Simple to HLA assistant editor
• Joe Sorroche
• DIS Section assistant editor
• Graham Shanks
• HLA Section assistant editor
• Neil Barrett
• Analysis Implementation Guidelines assistant
  editor

60
Link 16 PDG MembershipOver 150 Reflector Members!

• QinetiQ
• ASRCC
• SRC
• MRI
• MsTI
• 3Com
• Simulation, Inc
• APC
• CAS
• Marzen
• AMS
• Plexsys
• Raytheon

• Australia Virtual Ship
• USAF/AFAMS
• USAF/AFRL
• USAF/ASC
• USAF/ASC-TM
• USAF/DMT
• USAF/NAIC
• USAF/TACCSF
• DMSO
• Sparta
• US Navy
• US Army
• JITC
• NATO C3A

• Boeing
• VWC
• DMT
• Lockheed Martin
• DMT
• TACCSF
• Northrop Grumman
• Information Technology
• Integrated Systems
• Stasys
• TRW
• ASTi
• General Dynamics

61
Link 16 Simulation StandardProduct Description

• Product Type Standard for Simulating Link 16
  Tactical Datalink Networks
• Description
• This product shall be a SISO standard to define
  the methods to simulate a Link-16 Network within
  a Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) or
  High Level Architecture (HLA) framework.
•  This standard shall have three main sections and
  three appendices
• General Instructions (applies to DIS and HLA)
• DIS Specifics
• HLA Specifics
• Appendix A (normative) HLA BOM OMT
• Appendix B (normative) SIMPLE to DIS/HLA
  Conversion
• Appendix C (informative) Implementers
  Guidelines
• The standard shall detail implementation and
  usage methodologies in DIS and HLA as well as
  defining the data structures
• This standard shall not contradict any part of
  IEEE 1278 or IEEE 1516
• This standard shall be suitable for unlimited
  distribution

62
MS Community Identification

• Military C4ISR and C2 platform simulation
  communities
• Operational Simulation Community
• AF DMT, USN NASMP, National Guard DTNG
• Tactical Datalink Certification Community
• JITC
• NATO Tactical Datalink Interoperability Testing
  Syndicate
• Contractors Implementing Link 16 on Platforms
• Datalink Experimentation, Analysis Community
• JITC/JDEP
• DMSO, AFAMS
• Single Integrated Air Picture Systems Engineer
  (SIAP SE)
• Service Research Laboratories
• Joint National Integration Center (JNIC)

63
Community Need

• Specific Need Establish an interoperable method
  to simulate Link-16 networks
• Five different non-interoperable Link 16
  simulation protocols (two of which are non-DIS)
  have evolved over the last 10 years.
• Objectives of this standard
• Establish a single format to exchange Link 16
  messages
• Emulate Link-16 radio frequency networks
• To Ensure a lack of overlap with the Link 16
  Standard
• Informal Community Surveys were conducted by TDL
  SG
• Hub simulations centers were specifically
  invited to participate and share lessons learned

64
Product Maturity

• Approach
• Begin with the TDL SG product (02F-SIW-119,
  SIWZE Winner!)
• Solicit community comment through email-reflector
  discussions and face-to-face meetings.
• Maturity
• A reference implementation of the draft standard
  for DIS was demonstrated 24-26 September 2002 and
  24-28 February 2003 in the Northrop-Grumman IT
  CCD
• Draft Standard initially published by TDL SG as
  paper in 2002
• Methodologies modeled and presented at PDG
  meeting at I/ITSEC 2002 by JITC

65
Product Maturity (Contd)

• Alternative Approaches
• Leave the results of the SISO TDL SG as presented
  papers and in various places in the DIS EBV
  document.
• This guarantees non-interoperable simulations of
  Link-16 in current and new C4ISR platforms,
  defeating the purpose of Link-16.
• Prototypes
• Current Northrop Grumman implementation in the
  CCD
• Planned implementation in all other products
• MITRE has reported implementing the protocol
• USAF DMT is standardizing on DIS-J Fidelity Level
  1, with multiple implementations planned for 2003

66
Product Maturity (Contd)

• Impact to MS Community
• Allows for Experimentation that is currently not
  able to occur due to a lack of standards
• Allows for Operator Training on datalinks that
  currently doesnt occur due to FAA regulations
• Allows for higher fidelity and higher confidence
  interoperability certification
• Allows current and future simulations networks to
  simulate datalinks and to have some assurance
  that they will be compatible
• Impact to SISO Community
• The SISO simulation community will have an
  interoperable standard for the implementation of
  Link-16 simulations

67
Product Maturity (Contd)

• Impact without Product
• Non-interoperable methods for simulating Link-16
  could be developed
• Impact on time, money, and capabilities
• Domain Implications
• Resulting in increased interoperability and
  saving time/money for future implementers and
  integrators
• SIW Forums
• C4I, ISR, C4ISRTRM, Live

68
Product Development Milestones

• Aug 02 PDG Approved
• Sept 02 Initial PDG Meeting, Election of
  Officers
• Dec 02 Initial PDG Technical Meeting
• Hi-Fidelity Synchronization
• Additional Appendixes (Normative and Informative)
• Dec 02 Standard Number Assigned
• Jan 03 First Unofficial Draft of Standard
  Published
• Mar 03 First Official Draft of Standard
  Published
• Apr 03 Spring SIW Meeting,
• Technical Review of Standard
• Submittal of DIS Enumerations
• May 03 Second Official Draft of Standard
  Published
• Jun 03 Euro SIW Meeting, Euro Technical Review
  of Standard
• July 03 Third Official Draft of Standard
  Published
• Aug 03 Teleconference PDG Meeting, Final
  Technical Review of Standard
• Aug 03 Balloting Groups Form
• Sep 03 Final Draft Published, Submitted to
  Balloting Process
• Dec 03 Standard Approved(??)

69
Activities for this Workshop

• The Link 16 PDG will be meeting at 1030-1700,
  1900-2000 in the Boca Raton room
• 1015 1030 Introduction, Opening Comments,
  Action Items  
• 1030 1100 03S-SIW-72, Representation of Link
  16 Communications in the Joint Distributed
  Engineering Plant (JDEP)
• 1100 1200 Technical Discussions on High
  Fidelity Implementations, including RELNAV and
  RTT emulation
• 1315 1630 03S-SIW-142, Draft Link 16
  Simulation Standard Technical Review
• 1630 1700 03S-SIW-79, Enabling
  Interoperability SIMPLE to DIS-J
• 1900 2000 TDL SG
• Presentation of Current Status at AF Night
• Submittal of DIS Enumerations Changes

70
Dynamic Link Compatible HLA API PDG SAC
Outbrief - Spring 2003
71
Perspective

• DMSO RTI has been the defacto standard
• C Header organization / contents
• DLL/SO
• Names (RTING/RTI-NG)
• Contents (What symbols in which DLL/SO)
• Environment Variables
• Dynamic-Link compatibility has been a goal of RTI
  Vendors as theyve chased the DMSO RTI.
• As DMSO transitions HLA there is no longer a
  defacto standard RTI implementation
• Need for a independent, reviewed standard.

72
Community Need

• Use an HLA Federate without modification with any
  RTI. (Assuming a properly functioning RTI)
• Avoid Federate source code mods for new RTI
• Avoid re-compiling against new RTI header files
• Avoid re-linking against new RTI libraries
• Benefits
• HLA Tool vendor
• Single tool version not RTI specific.
• HLA RTI vendor
• Demonstrate alternative RTI without imposing
  Federate modifications
• Federation Integrators
• Any HLA Tool will work with Program-specified
  RTI.
• Freedom to chose RTI independent of individual
  Federate requirements.

73
PDG Team Members

• PDG Officers
• Chair Steve Monson (The Boeing Company)
• Vice Chair Thom McLean (GTRi)
• Secretary Allison Griffin (DISTi)
• DG Editors
• Editor Steve Drake (The Boeing Company)
• Assistant Len Granowetter (MaK Technologies)
• Assistant Björn Möller (Pitch)
• Assistant Roger Wuerfel (SAIC)
• PDG/DG Team Member(s)

74
Approach

• Developing alternative SISO-standard APIs
• HLA 1.3
• C
• Java
• IEEE 1516
• C
• Java

Not re-balloting IEEE 1516
75
Schedule

• 12/4/03 PDG Kick Off Meeting
• 2/11-2/12 1.3 Drafting Group Interim Meeting
• Spring 03 SIW
• Final Draft of HLA 1.3 APIs completed (C
  Java)
• Start work on HLA 1516 APIs
• Late Spring Begin 1.3 Balloting Process
• Late Summer 1.3 Standard Approved?
• Fall 03 SIW 1516 Final Draft ready for review
• 11/03 1516 Balloting
• Spring 04 SIW PDG Disbands

Semi-weekly telecons critical to keeping this
schedule.
76
Planned Approach HLA 1.3

• Develop SISO Standard alternative APIs
• C
• Java
• Start with latest DMSO RTI.
• Identify which components must be standardized
  for dynamic-link compatibility
• Prepare Final Draft for Spring 03 SIW

No Federate changes required to use new RTI
77
HLA 1.3 C API Preview

• Drafting Group recommended changes that would
  break backwards compatibility.
• Remove defines in Header
• Changed RTI functions to virtual
• Prototyped an RTI Cap to permit using new RTI
  without Federate modification

No Federate changes required to use new RTI
78
Planned Approach IEEE 1516

• Develop SISO Standard alternative APIs
• C
• Java
• Lock Down IEEE 1516 components by Fall 03 SIW
  for Ballotting

Current specification permits and encourages
vendor customization
79
http//rtiapi.mak.com/
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
(No Transcript)
83
(No Transcript)
84
(No Transcript)
85
Spring 2003 SIW Activities

• TUESDAY MANATEE C
• 1030-1200 HLA 1.3 API Drafting Group Meeting -
  Part I
• 1200-1330 Lunch
• 1300-1500 HLA API PDG Meeting
• 1500-1530 Break
• 1530-1700 HLA 1.3 API Drafting Group Meeting -
  Part II
• THURSDAY PARADISE D
• 1330-1700 HLA 1516 Drafting Group Meeting

86
FEDEP SISC Working Group

• WG Officers
• Chair Bob Lutz
• Vice Chair Reed Little
• Secretary Katherine Morse
• Technical Editor
• Roy Scrudder

87
Product Type and Description

• Product Type Recommended Practice
• Product Description
• The purpose of FEDEP is to provide the HLA
  user community with a recommended practice for
  how HLA federations are developed and executed .
  This document defines the processes and
  procedures that should be followed by users of
  the High Level Architecture (HLA) to develop and
  execute federations. It is not intended to
  replace low-level management and systems
  engineering practices native to HLA user
  organizations, but is rather intended as a
  higher-level framework into which such practices
  can be integrated and tailored for specific uses.

88
FEDEP Product Status

• Initially developed via the SISO BPDP processes
  by a SISO Product Development Group
• Moved to an IEEE SISC Working Group
• Balloted within the IEEE
• Approved, as IEEE P1516.3, by the IEEE-SA
  Standards Board on 20 March 2003
• The SISC FEDEP Working Group thanks the SISO for
  all its support and resources

89
New Efforts

• Transfer of Control Product Development Group

90
Activities for this workshop
91
RPR FOM PDG

• Date Thursday
• Time 800 1200
• Location Pelican C
• Topics
• Finalize GRIM
• Review FOM

92
HLA API PDG

• Date Tuesday
• Time 1030 500
• Location Manatee C
• Topics 1.3 Specification
• Date Thursday
• Time 130 500
• Location Paradise D
• Topics 1516 Specification

93
EDCS PDG

• Date Wednesday
• Time 500 700 PM
• Location Manatee C
• Topics
• This Workshop Review latest round of PDG
  comments on the current ISO product
• Finalize EDCS PDG activities

94
Link 16 PDG

• Date Tuesday
• Time 1030 500
• Location Boca Raton
• Topics
• Representation of Link 16 Communications in the
  Joint Distributed Engineering Plant (JDEP)
• Technical Discussions on High Fidelity
  Implementations, including RELNAV and RTT
  emulation
• Draft Link 16 Simulation Standard Technical
  Review
• Enabling Interoperability SIMPLE to DIS-J
• TDL SG

95
BOM PDG

• Date Tuesday
• Time 1030 - 300
• Location Ft Lauderdale
• Topics
• Formally announce PDG effort through series of
  invited speakers identifying User Needs,
  Challenges, and discussion of technical aspects.

96
C4ISR Sim Interoperability Technical Reference
Model 2 SG

• Date Tuesday
• Time 1030 - 500
• Location Manatee B
• Topics
• Work on Technical Reference Model

97
Conceptual Modeling SG

• Date Wednesday
• Time 700 900 PM
• Location Manatee B
• Topics
• This is the kickoff meeting for the SCM SG
• Re-affirming SCM SG Terms of Reference
• Building SCM SG structure

98
Simulation Reference Markup Language SG

• Date Tuesday
• Time _at_230 500 (following BOM PDG)
• Location Ft Lauderdale
• Topics
• Initial Meeting

99
A Good Problem

• 5 PDGs
• 4 SGs
• 1 Person

Solution Get more people in your organization
involved
100
MS Standards Focused Panel

• Joint panel by Simulation Interoperability
  Standards Organization (SISO) and The Society for
  Modeling and Simulation International (SCS)
• Panel discussions addressing mid-term modeling
  and simulation standards needs
• The panel discussions will be followed by
  audience discussion and feedback
• Results from each of the sessions will be
  compiled and briefed back to SISO to advocate MS
  community standards priorities to leadership in
  government, industry and academia
• Future Panel discussions at other MS forums

101
Summary

• SISO provides a proven infrastructure for
  creating standards and guidance products for the
  MS community
• SISO Products are in wide use
• SISO members expertise and experience is a asset
  in developing products
• SISO has a number of new Products in development

102
Go Develop Standards
Standards Activities Committee