NATO MSG-086 “Simulation Interoperability”

1. Limiting issues for true simulation interoperability: A survey done by MSG-086 and resulting recommendations NATO MSG-086 “Simulation Interoperability” Robert Siegfried, Johannes Lüthi, Martin Rother,Dieter Steinkamp, Matthias Hahn

2. MSG-086 is a multi-national effort under the auspices of NATO STO • DEU: Matthias Hahn (chairman), Robert Siegfried (secretary), Michael Bertschik, Johannes Lüthi, Martin Rother, Dieter Steinkamp • GBR: Neil Morris • ITA: Valeria Fontana • NLD: Arno Gerretsen • ROU: CatalinCiul • SWE: Fredrik Jonsson, Lennart Olsson • TUR: MesutGüney, HalitOguztüzün, KurtulusBektas

3. MSG-086 has 4 main objectives during its 3-year term and focuses on the DSEEP • Get common understanding of simulation system interoperability and of the structure of interoperability. • Get common understanding of interoperability aspects related to the different levels of interoperability. • Propose content and structure of required information products and determine the relation between these information products as described in the DSEEP process description to support interoperability at all levels. • Get common understanding of the development of these information products by providing prototypes.

4. The DSEEP (IEEE 1730) is a international standard for a process model for distributed simulations DSEEP =Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process

5. MSG-086 is convinced that the higher levels of simulation interoperability need more attention Many problems, yet standards are missing Standards available (e.g., TCP/IP, HLA, DIS, RPR FOM) A. Tolk et al., “Ontology Driven Interoperability – M&S Applications”, Whitepaper for I/ITSEC 2006.

6. 45 interoperability issues were identified which are regularly observed operational problems • Exploratory Team 27 • Predecessor of MSG-086 • Identified 63 interoperability issues • Recommended initiation of MSG-086 • MSG-086 • Work period: 2010-2013 • 45 consolidated interoperability issues • Some issues were rather solution approaches, some issues were combined due to similarity, some new issues

7. All interoperability issues are described by MSG-086 using a common schema • Problem definition • Extended problem description • Related work • Connection to LCIM level • Connection to DSEEP steps and artifacts • Connection to FEAT • Possible solution approaches • Existing implementations and their information products • Recommended information products • Examples / prototypes of selected information products • References

8. All interoperability issues are categorized into 9 issue groups • Conceptual Model (CM) • Federation Development (FD) • Fidelity (FI) • Infrastructure and Tools (IN) • LVC and C2-Sim coupling (LC) • Organizational and legal issues (OL) • Scenario (SC) • Synthetic Environment (SN) • Time Management (TM)

9. Example: Issue Group “Fidelity”

10. Example: Issue FI-05 “Lack of agreed critical behaviours and corresponding algorithms“

11. Most interoperability issues are located in the planning phases of the DSEEP Perform conceptual analysis Design simulation environment Develop simulation environment Issues [Counts] DSEEP steps

12. Concentration of many interoperability issues in just a few steps of the DSEEP (qualitative analysis!) Establish simulation environment agreements Develop scenario Develop conceptual model Design simulation environment Issues [Counts] DSEEP steps

13. MSG-086 decided to focus its further efforts on scenario development • Scenarios are • commonly used to specify requirements • often defined by the (military) users • major sources of requirements for simulation engineers • Scenarios are a bridge between users and engineers • Badly specified scenarios lead to wrong and/or inappropriate simulation environments

14. MSG-086 proposes a three-step scenario development process within the DSEEP Operational scenario Conceptual scenario Executable scenario • “A scenario is a description of thehypothetical or real area, environment, means, objectives, and events during a specified time framerelated to events of interest.” • MSG-053 (“Rapid Scenario Generation for Simulation Applications”)

15. 1 Define simulation environment objectives Operational scenarios • Have to be provided by military user or sponsor • Possibly assisted by SMEs • They provide a military description of a real or fictitious “piece of the world” of interest • Authoritative sources of requirements! • Described in terms the user is familiar with • Often combination of graphical and textual description

16. ExampleOperational scenario „An AH-1 like helicopter at 100m altitude has 45 m/s speed with straight flight. An opposing infantry troop engages the helicopter with IR man portable surface to air missile. He launches the missile from 1500m distance. Missile approaches the left rear by target. As the helicopter detects the engagement, it throws 12 flares to protect from missile when the missile has 1100 m to its target. Wind speed is 5 m/s according to the first location of the 90-degree angle of target.“

17. 2 Perform conceptual analysis Conceptual scenarios • Refinement of the operational scenarios • Closely related to the conceptual model • Developed by M&S experts • Possibly assisted by sponsor, user, SMEs • Described in more technical and specific terms • Reflects transfer of responsibility • More structured scenario specification, more precise use of terms, possibly use of specialized tools

18. ExampleConceptual scenario

19. 4 Develop simulation environment Executable scenario • Most detailed specification of a scenario • Subset of the conceptual scenarios • Contains all information necessary for preparation, initialization and execution of the simulation environment • Developed by M&S experts and system operators • Assistance of sponsor, user, SMEs should not be necessary • Ideally directly available to simulation systems • File, Web service, …

20. ExampleExecutable scenario

21. MSG-086 will deliver a “Guideline on Scenario Development for (Military) Simulation Environments”

22. Remaining work of MSG-086 until end of our term in fall 2013 • Develop final report • Detailed documentation of 45 interoperability issues • Develop “Guideline on Scenario Development for (Military) Simulation Environments” • Major ideas already discussed on SISO SIWs • See papers 12S-SIW-012 and 12F-SIW-046 • Minor deliverables • Change requests for DSEEP and FEAT

23. Outlook • Develop official SISO guidance document on scenario development process • Hand over “Guideline on Scenario Development for (Military) Simulation Environments” to SISO for further discussion and standardization • Update related NATO documents • NATO AMSP 01(B) “M&S Standards Profile” • NATO MSG MORS M&S Gap List

24. One slide summary • MSG-086 “Simulation Interoperability” • True simulation interoperability is more than technical interoperability! • Standards needed for higher levels of interoperability • Identification and documentation of 45 issues • Input for new activities • “Guideline for scenario development” is a major result • Plus: Input for NATO MSG MORS, AMSP-01, DSEEP, FEAT

25. Limiting issues for true simulation interoperability: A survey done by MSG-086 and resulting recommendations Robert Siegfried aditerna GmbH Otto-Hahn-Str. 13 B 85521 Riemerling/Munich Germany robert.siegfried@aditerna.de