|Acquisition Program: ||PEO IWS 7.0, Open Architecture, Captain James Shannon, (202) 781-3139|
| ||RESTRICTION ON PERFORMANCE BY FOREIGN NATIONALS: This topic is “ITAR Restricted”. The information and materials provided pursuant to or resulting from this topic are restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which control the export of defense-related material and services, including the export of sensitive technical data. Foreign nationals may perform work under an award resulting from this topic only if they hold the “Permanent Resident Card”, or are designated as “Protected Individuals” as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). If a proposal for this topic contains participation by a foreign national who is not in one of the above two categories, the proposal may be rejected.|| Objective: ||Design and develop a capability to use M&S to verify and validate conceptual models being identified for the US Navy adaptation of Open Architecture (OA).
|| Description: ||Some of the central tenants of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) can be applied to support community understanding and early validation and verification of the conceptual models being identified for the US Navy adaptation of Open Architecture.
It is desired that methods for achieving automatic coupling between the OA Conceptual Modeling Efforts and an M&S framework be evaluated and analyzed for application. Specifically, explore how patterns of interplay can be identified from the architecture description and then codified as Models providing a way for representing the “interplay and communication” of OA and other C4ISR infrastructure elements, and provide an automated mechanism for identifying shortfall gaps and deficiencies early in the engineering process.
To date, the Navy OA efforts among the IPTs have produced various presentations, technical white papers, electronic capturing of requirements, and electronic capturing of the conceptual model (via analysis class diagrams and activity diagrams) using Rational Rose. What is needed is the ability to cull and analyze the information collected to represent OA elements and produce a couping between the OA elements and a modeling and simulation environment. Thus the opportunity exists to begin to represent the OA elements, which may be described using DoDAF system views and technical views at a M&S conceptual level. This will provide the opportunity to marry M&S with the Navy OA effort and it’s produced artifacts thereby supporting the transitions from conceptual model description to early draft prototypes and final implementations.
|| ||PHASE I: Investigate ways to represent executable conceptual models as they are laid out in the conceptual descriptions that were produced using tools such as Rational Rose. Such descriptions (class and activity diagrams) could provide a useful foundation for building the overall executable conceptual models. The summary of conceptual information can be blended (as best as possible) into Use Case templates and represented, if necessary, as a UML Use Case diagram to understand the larger picture. However, more importantly, the examination of the conceptual information can ultimately lead to the discovery of “pattern descriptions”, for representing the conceptual model.
|| ||PHASE II: Building on the results of Phase I, develop and demonstrate a prototype model of a selected OA component that could be taken through the various system and technical views in compliance with the DoDAF.
|| ||PHASE III: Integrate this prototype in various Navy Open Architecture Engineering Environments.
PRIVATE SECTOR COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL/|| ||DUAL-USE APPLICATIONS: This capability will provide for greater understanding of the capabilities and requirements of the Navy systems being represented and which are intended to interoperate. Furthermore, it will help achieve the OA goal of facilitating the introduction of new capabilities into warfighting enhancements rapidly and effectively.
|| References: ||
1. Chase, Gustavson, Root, “From FOMs to BOMs and Back Again”, 06S-SIW-115, 2006 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), Huntsville, AL, April 2006
2. Gustavson, Chase, “Using XML and BOMs To Rapidly Compose Simulations And Simulation Environments”, WinterSim 2004, Washington D.C., Dec 2004
3. Chase, Gustavson, Latika, “Using BOMs to support Multi-Resolution Models”, 04F-SIW-052, Orlando, FL, September 2004
4. Root, Oesterheld, McAuliffe, “Development Baton Handoffs - Transitioning from Repeat to Model-Centric,” Fall 2003 SIW, Orlando, FL, September 2003
5. Mall, H., Thumim K., Clay B., McKenzie, F., Hieb M.R., Cosby M. 1997. “MRCI Use of Modular Translation of Command and Control Messages between C4I Systems and Simulations”, Paper 97S-SIW-201, 1997 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, March 1997
6. Tolk, A., Hieb, M.R., Galvin, K., Khimeche, L. “Merging National Battle Management Language Initiatives for NATO Projects,” Paper 12 in Proceedings of the NATO Research and Technology Agency/Modelling and Simulation Group Conference on “M&S to Address NATO’s New and Existing Military Requirements”, RTO-MP-123, Koblenz, Germany, October 2004|
|Keywords: ||Modeling & Simulation; Open Architecture; C4ISR; DoDAF; Pattern Descriptions; Verification & Validation|