1 / 15

Base Object Model (BOM) Product Development Group

A. B. X. C. Base Object Model (BOM) Product Development Group. Conceptual. Federate. Federation. BOM Spec. SISO-STD-003-xxxx BOM Template Spec. BOM History. Protocol Oriented. Object-Based Oriented. Component/Service Oriented. 2004. 1990. 1996. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002.

wylie
Download Presentation

Base Object Model (BOM) Product Development Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A B X C Base Object Model (BOM)Product Development Group Conceptual Federate Federation

  2. BOM Spec SISO-STD-003-xxxx BOM Template Spec BOM History Protocol Oriented Object-Based Oriented Component/Service Oriented 2004 1990 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 … 2010 HLA1516 Evolve DIS HLA1516 FEDEP1516 HLA Rapidly composableand scalable M&S C M S E FOM“piece parts” (FEDEP, OMT) BOM Methodology Strawman ReferenceFOM Study Group BOM Study Group BOMPDG RPR FOM Guidance Doc SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide for BOM Use and Implementation SRML Schemas DTD XSLT • Tools • Components • Libraries SOAP WSDL

  3. BOM Community Involvement 162 38

  4. Officers, Editors, Reviewers • Assigned Reviewers • George Hughes • Staffan Löf • Mark McAuliffe • Chris Rouget • Reed Little • Mark Biwer • DG Team • Paul Gustavson (Lead Editor) • Björn Löfstrand • Steve Goss • Steve Reichenthal • Roy Scrudder • Jake Borah • Tram Chase • BOM PDG Officers • Larry Root (Chair) • Bob Lutz (Vice-Chair) • Jane Bachman (Secretary) • Chris Rouget (SAC TAD)

  5. BOM PDG Goals and Activities • Develop a Specification for Base Object Models • The open standardization of BOMs is essential • Broad participation required to mature the BOM specification to a point where it can survive the Balloting & Acceptance Processes • Specification format will follow: • SISO-ADM-005-Draft-V0.8 Guide For SISO Standards Style • Based on SAC TC 20 May 2003 meeting, go-ahead given to publish standard as a “Trial-Use” Standard and conduct a trial use“Trial Use” Period Completed Summer 2004 • Effort includes a Guidance Document and a Specification numbered as follows: • SISO-STD-003-xxxx Base Object Model (BOM) Template Specification • SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide For BOM Use and Implementation: • addresses the “how to” in generating BOMs and the “how to” in piecing them together into BOM-assemblies in order to produce a SOM and/or FOM

  6. 1 Assigned Reviewers (AR) Team Nominated and Approved 1 4 2 DG Stands Up Baseline Standard 2 3 Standard Put Out for Community Review via SISO Reflectors 3 5 DG Collates Comments and Formulates Responses 4 5 PDG Meeting Held To Formally Adjudicate Comments and Responses 8 6 DG Incorporates Only Approved Comments Into Standard 6 7 AR Team Reviews Updated Standard for Verification of Changes 7 Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG Deems Ready for “Trial-Use” Period (Complete) 8 9 Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG Deems Ready for Balloting 9 BOM PDG Development Process BOM SISO-STD-003.1 Development Cycle

  7. SISO-STD-003 BOM Spec Total of 568 Comments Addressed • Start Process April 12th, 2003 • Round 1 (30 days) – October 17th, 2003 – 136 Comments (71t/65e) • Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 18th, 2004 – 112 Comments (50t/62e) • Trial Use (120 days) – July 23rd, 2004 – 42 Comments (24t/17e) • Round 3 (30 days) – Feb 11th, 2005 – 132 Comments (79t/53e) • Round 4 (20 days) – July 5th, 2005 – 23 Comments (16t/7e) • Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9th, 2005 – 141 Comments (51t/90e) SISO-STD-003.1 BOM Guide Total of 437 Comments Addressed • Start Process May 25th, 2004 • Round 1 (30 days) – July 23rd, 2004 – 75 Comments (30t/45e) • Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 11th, 2005 – 202 Comments (64t/138e) • Round 3 (20 days) – July 5th, 2005 – 13 Comments (3t/10e) • Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9th, 2005 – 137 Comments (25t/112e) Averaging 4-months / Spiral or Review Cycle t-technical e-editorial

  8. The Ballot Group Notification went out Aug 14, 2004 and Closed Sept 14, 2004 38 Ballot Pool Members Ballot Pool is Balanced in All Categories: Representation Categories: Commercial, Government, Academic Each must make up at least 10% but not more than 75% of Pool We have: C=52.6% G=26.3% A=21.1% Organization No one organization shall represent more than 25% of a representation category Our Break Down is on the next slide w/ Highest Representation Coming from SimVentions at 15% of Commercial Interest Categories: User, Developer, General No Interest category shall exceed 50% of the balloting group We have: U=34.2% D=44.7% G=21.1% Ballot Pool was Sent to SAC and Approved Ballot Pool

  9. US DoD ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE DMSO Defense Research & Development Canada Ministry of Defense UK IEEE Academia University of Texas - Applied Research Lab John Hopkins University - Applied Physics Lab University of Pennsylvania Carnegie Mellon University - System Engineering Institute Naval Postgraduate School Old Dominion University Host of Large & Small Business Boeing SAIC Raytheon GD-AIS BAE BMH AEgis SimVentions SRI TAC-Eng PiTCH Preforce Consultants Ballot Pool Companies Countries Organizations • USA • United Kingdom • Sweden • Germany • Canada • France Overall PDG Is Even More Diverse!

  10. Ballot Results • Overall Ballot Results: • 36 of the 38 ballot pool members responded. That is a 94.74% overall response from the balloters. • We had 35 accept/reject votes and 1 abstention (Guide) • We had 36 accept/reject votes (Standard) • This means the product ballot process is valid because we have met the two requirements per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6: minimum ballot return percentage of 75% – we hit 94.74%; and, less than 30% abstention – we had 1 abstention (2.63%) on the Guidance Document. • From this point forward, the percentage-computations are to be based on the total number of accept/reject votes received (per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6) – which is 35 for the Guidance and 36 for the Specification. • For the Guidance Document: • 17 of the 35 voted to accept (48.57%) • 17 of the 35 voted to accept w/comment (48.57%) • Overall 34 of 35 votes for acceptance (97.14%) • 1 of the 35 voted to reject with comment (2.86%) • Ballot result for the Guidance document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot: at least 65% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.14% • For the Specification: • 16 of the 36 voted to accept. That is a 44.44% response to accept • 19 of the 36 voted to accept with comment. That is a 52.77% response to accept with comment • The above two provides an overall 35 of 36 votes for acceptance. That is a 97.21% response to accept • 1 of the 36 voted to reject with comment. That is a 2.77% response to reject with comment • This means that the ballot result for the Specification document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6: at least 75% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.21%.

  11. Ballot Comments • Spec • 18 different commenters • 141 comments • 29 Basic Editorial comments (#1) • 58 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5) • 50 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2) • 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3) • 3 General comments (#4) • Guide • 14 different commenters • 137 comments • 66 Basic Editorial comments (#1) • 38 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5) • 24 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2) • 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3) • 8 General comments (#4) • Total • 278 comments All 278 Comments Have Been Successfully Adjudicated per BPDP Rules

  12. BOM (Base Object Model) PDGBallot Successful – Comments Adjudicated – Final Submission Package In – SAC/EXCOM Approved!! • Submit Products to SAC and EXCOM for ‘Approval to Ballot’ • Sept’05 – SAC/TAD • Formulate The Ballot Group • Aug 15 to Sept 14 – SAC/TAD (30-day minimum – SAC Approval Received) • Sept’05 – PDG Face-to-Face - Fall’05 SIW – PANEL Session • Oct’05 – Release V0.12 as candidate standards • Conduct The Initial Ballot • Nov’05 – TAD/PDG (30-day) - Both Spec and Guide • Resolve Ballot Group Comments • Nov/Dec’05 PDG Comments Received & Processed • Jan’06 – PDG Face-to-Face and Teleconference, all comments successfully adjudicated • Conduct Re-Circulation Ballot • Not Needed • Closure Activities • Feb’06 – SAC/TAD/PDG BPDP BPDP Step 3 SISO-STD-003-2006! BOM Template Specification SISO-STD-003.1-2006! Guide for BOM Use & Implementation PDG Session – Spring’06 SIW Tuesday, 8:00am-12:00 Room - Salon 6A What’s Next – The SSG & Managing Steps 5 and 6 • Submit Balloted Product to SACand EXCOM for ‘Approval asSISO Product’ • Mar’06 – TAD/SAC/EXCOM • Post SISO Community Announcement • April’06 – SAC BPDP Step 4

  13. Overall Schedule July 2004 DG/PDG Face-to-Face Guide/Vol/Vol II Jan 2005 DG/PDG Face-to-Face Guide & Vol I & Vol II July 2005 Spec Review(4) Guide Review(3) Mar 2006 Product Approval Package sent to SAC and EXCOM Oct 2003, Release Vol 1 for Review(1) www.boms.infoestablished July 2004 Release Guide for Review(1) Vol I Enters Trial Use 05F SIW Guide & Spec Ballot Pool Formed BOM Tutorial Feb 2005, Release Spec Review(3) Guide Review(2) 03F SIW Establish Assigned Reviewers 03S SIW PDG Kick-off 04F SIW Vol 1 In Trial Use Guide Reviewed Tools Available Nov/Dec 05 Ballot Conducted Ballot Successful 06S SIW Guide & Specification Completes SAC/EXCOM Review SISO Standardization Achieved! BOM Tutorial Aug 21st 2003 DG Face-to-Face Guide & Vol 1 05S SIW Guide & Spec Adjudication BOM Tutorial Vol I and II united into a Single Specification RPR-BOMs available 04S SIW Guide Vol/Vol II Feb 2004, Release Vol 1 for Review(2) Developed & Presented BOM Tutorial Jan 2006 Face-to-Face and TC Ballot Comment Adjudication completed June 2005 EuroSIW BOM/HLA-E Coord BOMworks Tool Available May 2004 Release Guide For Review(1)

  14. Related BOM Efforts Give us your Input and Thoughts! Affect the Direction of BOMs • Web-based Survey • http://www.boms.info/blog • http://www.boms.info website • BOM Specs & Related Documents • BOM Information • BOM History • BOM Current Activities • BOM PDG Reflector • BOM FAQ • BOM Tutorial • Resource CDs • RPR BOMs • Tools • BOMworks™ • Visual OMT™ • WinterSim’04 • I/ITSEC ’04 Conference • 2005 EuroSIW Go! – Read! – Interact! Get Answers! Ask Questions! Provide Input! This is The Library Get Training! Tools are Arriving! Use Them – Build Them – Improve Them Wider Visibility!

  15. Improving Composability in the World of Modeling and SimulationUsing Base Object Models (BOMs) as Building Blocks Pattern of Interplay Events State Machines Definition Concept Products BOM – a piece part of a conceptual model, simulation object model, or federation object model, which can be used as a building block in the development and/or extension of a simulation or federation. BOM Palette - x Simulation Components Choose what fits conceptual model? User Requirements A B • Simulation Systems • foms • federates X C Illustration Federate(SOM) Sim / SystemA WeaponsEffect BOM 1 BOM 2 Theater WarfareRepresentation Federate A Detect / Jam Federate B - or - Federation(FOM) BOM 3 BOMAssembly RepairResupply Representation Composition Federate X CompositeInterface - or - BOM n Model#1 Model#2 RadioComms Aggregation Model#3 Model#n BOMs are designed for enabling composability, providing extensibility, facilitating interoperability, improving manageability, and encouraging understandibility.

More Related