XMSF Workshop 19-20 August 2002 MOVES Institute, Monterey California

1
XMSF Workshop 19-20 August 2002MOVES Institute,
Monterey California
Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework

• Topic Web Technologies and XML
• Chair Don Brutzman, NPS

2
Members

• Erik Chaum
• Justin Couch
• Steven Fouskarinis
• Rob Glidden
• Jack Jackson
• Dr. David Kwak

Dr. Francisco Loaiza Dr. Chenghui Luo Dr. Edward
Sims Dr. Andreas Tolk Phil Zimmerman
3
Triage Consensuson XMSF Challenges
Where do we agree?
What areas most deserve immediate work?
Where do we disagree?
4
Content Transformation
slides
Player
Content (e.g., Operations Orders)
SVG
outline
XHTML
Who What Where When How . . .
X3D
chart
SMIL
3DVE
etc.
Domains One or more ontologies
e.g., Integrated Media Player
5
Where do we agree?

• Formal Data Models ability to exchange data with
  real-world systems
• Enable every application to input/output XML
• Feedback/remediation capabilities
• MS requirements address representations of real
  world, communications between logical/abstract
  entities, and likely even broader applications
• Notable 7 Habits of Successful Web Services

6
7 Habits of Successful Web Services

• Enablement of developer community
• Services are not equal to applications
• Incrementalism results gt effort
• Federation accept political uncertainties,
  interests
• Assembly ? combining
• Virtualization ? distillation
• System stability ? equilibrium or dynamic system

7
Where do we agree?

• Security must be designed into framework
• not inserted afterwards
• Must be cross-platform
• Interoperability
• Interface/syntax
• Ontology/semantics
• Lines up network and logical layers ? context,
  then possible design patterns/UML to ensure
  semantics work
• Adapt what is now commercially available

8
Web Services
Repositories (storage area network) -- networked where they belong and available where they need to be Presentation vs Content Many levels Approved/acceptable tagsets, languages
Discovery services UDDI LDAP
Messaging XML-RPC SOAP Flexible app-based protocols
Transport http, ftp, beep, loose/tight coupling, support messages
9
Web Services
Access and Security -- group definitions, etc. E,g, Liberty Alliance (ProjectLiberty.org) XML encryption, authentication, DRM, SAML, etc.
Functionality Methods to be exposed
Description of available interfaces WSDL Semantic Web (RDF, DAML/OIL)
Management Services, session, profiles, provision, network
10
Where do we agree?

• Need for central brokers/controllers versus loose
  distributed peer-to-peer versus dynamic
  combinations possible?
• Chosen solution(s) driven by perceived
  time-to-market / time-to-implement we also care
  how long this work lives

11
Where do we disagree?

• We need a new MS markup language to express
  higher-level constructs unique to MS not
  available through other XML
• We need a common subset object model, and
  relating that to new/legacy systems (common
  functionality vs mismatched methodologies)

12
Where do we disagree?

• Operational C4I systems and MS systems are
  converging same from a user perspective
  different from engineering perspective

13
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Published (complementary) vocabularies
• Survey the standards available, their
  capabilities, and possible application
• Establish technical strategies for supporting
  legacy systems (e.g., Common Operating
  Environment)
• Show definitions of vocabularies, ontologies,
  domain environmental/concepts/etc. leading to
  context (time-sensitive, location-sensitive,
  individual-sensitive)

14
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Determine who is (or is not) the customer
• Define minimum essential services in each layer
  (what is the Hello World ultimate test case)
• Producing exemplars is an important next step
• Show RTI via Web services example
• Database-driven solution to Web showing database
  lt-gt XML lt-gt Web (e.g., 3-tier, 2-tier models)

15
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Demonstrations/Exemplars try to use approach to
  benefit a valued system
• Generic Hub tactical demonstration
• Consider simulation-based acquisition project at
  ONR (Marine Expeditionary Family of Fighting
  Vehicles MEFFV)
• Consider Joint Synthetic Battlespace (JSB)
• Translation/interaction training using Humanoid
  Animation (physics-based) and XML
  Internationalization
• Timing Half-year ? I/ITSEC longer term ?
  funding cycles? Other milestones?

16
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Demonstrations/Exemplars other possibilities
• MC02 Limited Objective Experiment (LOE)
  follow-ons
• USMC Deployable Virtual Training Environment
• Other exemplars?
• Technically sufficient subset of Web services
• Strategically sufficient for broader fundability
• Show value add, what new things can be done, etc.
• Migrate RTI or Federation Object Model (FOM)
  tools to Web services

17
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• 2-stage approach
• Proof of concept exemplars 2002
• Documented, cost-evaluated development repeatable
  approaches try to do this on a case-by-case Web
  service migration
• Need to include security exemplar up-front show
  various (even if limited) capabilities based on
  current concerns with running MS on the Web
• When do we show a capability, how much, what
  is/isnt available?
• Cross-cutting secure (simple) Hello World?
• Can we show with one of the other examples?

18
Next Steps/Comments

• Assignment to all
• Individual vision statement
• Learning exemplars to show vision
• Establishment of forums for community
  learning/agreement
• Consider users point of view can accomplish
  tasks without going to developer
• Collection of services / broad possibilities for
  implementation approaches
• What are the hard issues in the framework

19
Additional slides produced
20
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Authoritative fitness for purpose, functionality,
  risk, etc. for models
• Establish layers of Web services framework for
  MS (and cross-cutters like security)
• Need to examine MS via Web services approach
• Determine completeness elaborate, provide to
  report, get workshop participant comment
• Examine legacy migration to Web services using
  techniques that are now available
• Consider new architectures possible but determine
  compatibility and migration path

21
Work Groups

• Web/XML Don Brutzman
• Networking Mark Pullen
• ModelingSimulation Katherine L. Morse

22
Considerations
WEB/XML Data Representation Service
Description Graphical User Interface Description
State Transition Description Security
Paradigm Transactions Ontologies Repositories
Search Engines
NETWORKING End-to-end QoS Many-to-many
Multicast Streaming Multimedia Network
Monitoring Negotiation of QoS Object Request
Broker Group Coordination Middleware Session
Coordination Middleware
MODELING SIMULATION Backward Compatibility Autho
ritative Representations Composability Multi-reso
lution modeling Tactical System
Integration Simulation Support Services
23
Web Technologies / XML

• XMSF
• XMSF will have a modular framework with kernel
  plug-ins to support extensions and modifications
  to framework layers as low as the network layer.
  
• XMSF must be underpinned by the strongest and
  most current web security technologies.
• XMSF must be compatible with currently fielded
  wireless, radio and wire military technologies to
  include SINGARS, UHF/VHF radios and Digital
  Subscriber Network (DSN).
• Requires aggressive reliance on commercial
  technologies and active engagement with their
  standards development groups such as IETF, ISO,
  W3C, IEEE, and Web3D.
• Adaptive, cross-platform capabilities will be a
  given.

24
Web Technologies / XML

• XMSF
• Many of the most difficult interoperability
  challenges are already being solved in due course
  by the development of tightly interdependent and
  highly complementary Web standards.
• This strategy can provide the most technically
  robust solutions, with the most reliable
  future-growth processes, and the best-case
  enterprise-wide business practices (i.e. DoD-wide
  and coalition-wide).
• XMSF will employ object-oriented programs and
  validatable structured data in a
  language-independent and object-system-independent
  manner.
• Design patterns will unambiguously define
  language bindings by mapping representations and
  component models from root XML schemas to
  multiple programming languages and application
  programming interface (API) bindings, including
  the Interface Description Language (IDL).
• Software component functionality and interactions
  will be further documented using the Unified
  Modeling Language (UML).

25
Suggestions for Discussion

• Discuss push vs. pull architectural models.
• Discuss frameworks for agents RDF, DAML,
  partnerships with other projects (e.g. ESG), etc.
• Discuss unambiguous autogeneration of behaviors
  in multiple languages.
• Given that many of the standards that are
  required are still nascent or not even defined,
  how do we minimize the impact of changing
  standards ?
• Discuss XML-based wire protocols with a view to
  allowing run time extensibility.1
• Identify technology availability immediate,
  near-term (1-2 years), likely (3-5 years),
  problematic.
• 1 Some issues were identified as spanning
  multiple topic areas. These issues are indicated
  by italics.

26
What areas most deserve immediate work?

• Once show Web services use cases, also show how
  prototyping and development tools can be applied
  for MS process
• Leverage emerging industry practice
• Nontrivial effort
• Include policies and procedures
• These many recommendations ought to be
  collected/evaluated/promulgated as a roadmap
  needed product Strategic Opportunities Symposium
• Keep it easy and succeed! Need to proceed at
  technical level before taking to CIO level
  (constrained visibility)
• Need Workshop vision/goals clear enough for big
  strategy and this group vets it

27
Suggestions for Discussion

• Identify standards for identification,
  authentication, authorization, and encryption.
• Recognizing XMLs verbosity, how do we minimize
  impact on bandwidth? Consider compression
  standard(s).
• Identify standards for searching for types of
  services. Consider the implications for
  ontologies to establish commonalities between
  services. Identify areas where standards dont
  yet exist.

28
Suggestions for Discussion

• Where are the schema/ontology repositories for
  common service representations?
• Generic Hub information-exchange data model
• DARPA agent modeling language (DAML)
• Resource Description Framework (RDF) ontologies
• Identify potential libraries of components which
  can be made public to support reusability,
  encourage interoperability, and reduce learning
  curves.
• 3D models
• Portable computational models
• Software-agent templates with requested
  capabilities
• Stream-specific adaptors/components
• Exercise simulation management
• Operational recording
• Order of battle

29
Strategic Considerations

• Discuss establishment of 24 x 7 x 365 networked
  virtual worlds over DREN/Abilene/Web between NPS
  and GMU to show accessible/growing exemplars with
  network monitoring.
• Identify approaches for gaining support of
  various service operational commanders plus OSD
  C4I and transformation agents as top-level
  sponsors.
• Discuss business model and logistics of
  open-source implementations.
• Identify models/scenarios for bottom-up
  demonstration of capabilities using scenarios of
  increasing sophistication and interoperability.
• List contrary technical attributes/conflicts
  which ought to be avoided.

30
Data Modeling
Discussion of need for defined vocabulary
and object relationships
S-Class Object
Materiel
Org
Facility
Features
Person
Unit
Non- Combatant
Soldier
Key is representing relationships and having
extensible model.
31
Todays Kids
REQUIREMENT Prevent Boredom
Initial capability commonality
32
Whats Next / Comments

• Need to identify process for next steps
• RTI over Web services may be good starting point.
• Need framework big enough for XMSF to bring in
  commercial interests.
• Need to consider domains beyond military use
  run the risk of being too specialized
• Non-military exemplar
• How to broaden dialog
• Education aspect should be explored overview of
  the important technology components
• Elaborate on acronym list in White Paper

33
Whats Next / Comments

• Define vision / customers / stakeholders
• Need a more specific XMSF overview (for general
  consumption)
• Too high-level, needs to be more concrete
• What exactly are Web services in XMSF context?
• Components runnable in a browser available over
  Web, able to interact with others? Ability to
  compose models? Ability to remotely invoke models
  across Internet protocol? Distributed objects
  across Internet with interfaces described by XML?
  Framework for composable and reusable components
  (next-generation HLA)? Decompose to small models
  and construct complex models from those models
  communicate and request services over network
  (peer-to-peer)?