Transcript Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM

Interactive Electronic Technical Manual
(IETM)
Standards and Classes
By Don Reynolds
ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.
Bonn, Germany
January 2000
ETM/IETM Specifications
and Standards
 MIL-PRF-87268/9 (U.S. DoD)
 Metafile for Interactive Documents (U.S. Navy)
 MIL-STD-2361 (U.S. Army)
 MIL-PRF-28001C with IED OS (CALS)
 AECMA 1000D (European Aircraft Mfg.)
 ATA 2100 (Air Transport Association)
 STEP Product Documentation (ISO)
FACTS
 The availability of COTS products that support an
IETM specification/standard is inversely
proportional to the complexity of that
specification/standard
 Most vendors are becoming less interested in DoD
requirements and more interested in making
products that work over Web
Important!!
IETM Standardization
We want neutral data
(e.g., XML or SGML),
but what is neutral???
IETM DTDs generally include
dynamic constructs that require
specialized (i.e. unique) authoring
and presentation systems
U.S. DoD IETM Specifications
 MIL-PRF-87268
 General content, style, format, and user interaction
requirements for IETMs
 Governs the look and feel
 MIL-PRF-87269
 Database requirements for IETMs
 Separates data into a generic layer and a contentspecific layer
TM/ETM/IETM
Types/Classifications
 U.S. Army and Air Force Data Types

Type A, B, B+, C
 U.S. Navy (CDNSWC) Classes

Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Widely known)
 JCALS Classes



1000 Class (1300, 1500, 1700)
2000 Class (2300, 2500, 2700)
3000 Class (3500)
ETM/IETM Classes
 Existing ETMs/IETMs generally span classes
 Classes exist to aid understanding, they were not
designed for contractual use
Conversion Cost
Classes & Converting
from Hardcopy
high-end estimate
low-end estimate
Class 1
Class 4
ETM Class 1
 Electronically indexed page images
 Display: Full page-oriented electronic viewing
 Data: MIL-PRF-28002 (raster image), Postscript, or
PDF data
 Functionality: Access pages via intelligent index,
limited use of hotspots
 Note: OK for TM data that rarely changes
ETM Class 2
 Electronic scrolling document (also, page-oriented
or frame oriented)
 Display: Scrolling text/graphics window
 Data: ASCII text, possible HTML, XML, or SGML
tagging, bitmap graphics
 Functionality: Browse through scrolling
information with user selectable hot-spots on text
or graphics
Classes 3, 4, 5 = IETMs
 Difference between ETMs and IETMs
 An IETM asks questions and responds accordingly to
user-provided answers
 An IETM employs context-dependent filtering, display is
driven by conditions that are controlled by variables and
expressions
Troubleshooting Flowchart
Check for
Excessive
Port Leakage
Is Solenoid
Operating
Port not
Leaking
Is Air
Venting from
Port Valve
No
No
Yes
Yes
Are Air
Lines Clear
No
Check for
Binding
Guide
Yes
Is Guide
Bindin
g
“Interactive” Data
Yes
No
Port
Leaking
ETM Class 3 (IETM)
 Display: Interaction through dialog boxes,
interaction functions per MIL-M-87268, less
scrolling text
 Data: ASCII text with XML or SGML tags, content
tags rather than structure or format tags, MIL-D87269 to the extent possible
 Functionality: Dialog-driven interaction, logical
display of information in accordance with content
ETM Class 4 (IETM)
 Display: limited scrolling text (necessary info only),
interaction functions per MIL-M-87268,
interaction via dialog boxes
 Data: authored to a database, full conformance to
MIL-D-87269, interactive features authored in,
reduced redundancy
 Functionality: same as Class 3
Class 3 vs Class 4 (1/2)
 To the end user, Class 3 and 4 IETMs may look and
act the same
 Authoring and source data management systems
may be vastly different
 Class 3 ETM authoring system may be an XML or
SGML editor and DBMS may be the computer’s filesystem
 Class 4 ETM authoring systems are usually custom
designed and integrated with a COTS DBMS (too
complicated to do with XML or SGML editor)
Class 3 vs Class 4 (2/2)
 Class 4 is generally desirable for highly complex
systems (e.g. F-16, F-22, F/A-18, V-22, AEGIS Fire
Control System, etc.)
 Note: The advantages of supplying Class 4, fully
attributed, MIL-PRF-87269 compliant, IETM
databases to the government are not clear
(generally, no other presentation system can be
used to view the data)
ETM Class 5 (IETM)
 Integrated Database IETM
 Not a clearly defined class but is intended to be a
superset of Class 4
 Accounts for integration of Class 4 IETMs with
other applications
 Model-based or rule-based expert system diagnostics
 Training, Interactive Courseware
Hardcopy
Requirements
BEWARE
 Producing both IETMs and traditional hardcopy
TMs from the same data is generally more difficult
as ETM Class increases
 May be necessary

Power outages, transportability, readability (large
drawings and schematics)
87269 and AECMA 1000D
 Fundamentally different approaches
 AECMA 1000D is built on the Data Module (DM)
concept
 87269 is built up from a Generic Layer concept in
concert with a Content Specific Layer
 Both approaches have certain advantages and
disadvantages
Data Organization/Hierarchy
 87269 allows for a recursive system element to
denote hierarchy
 This can be used with or without a Standard
Numbering System
 In 1000D, hierarchy can be delineated through a
Standard Numbering System and the Data Module
Code
 As opposed to the nesting of DMs within the markup
Dynamics
 87269 handles dynamic data with embedded
variables, expressions, and variable-driven
conditional branching


Pre-conditions, Post-conditions, IF-NODEs, LOOPNODEs, NODE-ALTs
These, however, have a negative impact on COTS product
support
 1000D has some dynamic capabilities with fault
isolation information for simple traversement
through Yes/No sequences
87269 and the Web
 We are currently looking at formulating a Web-
enabled alternative to 87269
 Direct translation of 87269 DTDs to XML will not
result in Web compatibility
 The functionality given by variables, expressions,
conditional-branching, etc. cannot be handled
directly in XML by an XML-capable browser

Creative work-arounds are required
87269 and UML
 Developing a UML model of the generic layer and
the O-level content specific layer in 87269
 From this UML model we are examining Webcompatible alternatives that include XML, Java, etc.
Why UML?
 To make 87269 constructs more specific and
comprehensible for developers
 UML is the latest OO modeling language,
standardized through the OMG, and continues to
gain acceptance world-wide
 87269 is Object Oriented in nature due to the use
of architectural forms
 Easy to move from UML to XML, Java, and C++ for
implementation
Architectural Forms in UML
A rc h it e c t u ra l-F o rm s
id : ID
Example
c dm : NA M E
1..*
re f : I DR E F
IF -N O D E
L O O P -N O D E
C o n d it io n : e x p re s s io n
0..*
In d e x D e c la re [ 0 . . 1 ] : a s s e rt io n
Th e n S e q : N O D E -S E Q
I nfo rm a tio n C o n t en t -F o rm s
E ls e S e q [ 0 . . 1 ] : N O D E -S E Q
E x it C o n d : e x p re s s io n
In d e x A lt e r [ 0 . . 1 ] : a s s e rt io n
R e p e a t S e q : N O D E -S E Q
D e c id e ()
E va l_ E x p re s s io n ()
S t a rt ()
E va l_ C o n d it io n ()
U p d a t e _ In d e x ()
Te rm in a t e ()
NO DE
1
n a m e : C D A TA
t y p e : C D A TA
it e m id : C D A TA
p re c o n d it io n s [ 0 . . * ] : p re c o n d
N O D E -A L TS
1
p o s t c o n d it io n s [ 0 . . * ] : p o s t c o n d
Nodes : NO DE
C o n t e n t s : In fo rm a t io n C o n t e n t -F o rm s
1
1 . .*
E va l_ A lt s ()
p rim it ive s [ 0 . . * ] : p rim it ive
N O D E -S E Q
S e q E l e m e n t s : A rc h it e c tu r al-F o rm s
lin k s [ 0 . . * ] : lin k
Tra ve rs e ()
D is p la y ()
E va l_ P o s t _ C o n d it io n s ()
1
E va l_ P re _ C o n d it io n s ()
1
Context Filtering Elements in UML
p r ec o n d
pos tc ond
C o n d it io n : e x p re s s io n
% p rim it iv e
P C o n d it io n : a s s e rt io n
(f ro m P ri m i t i v e s )
E v a lu a t e ()
A s s e rt ()
a s s e rt io n
e x p re s s io n
R e s u lt : P C D A T A
E v a lu a t e ()
b i na r y -o p e ra t io n
F i rs t E x p : e x p re s s io n
S e c o n dE x p : e x p re s s io n
E x p : e x p re s s io n
P ro p : p ro p e rt y
E va lu a t e ()
p ro p e rt y
u n a ry -o p e ra t io n
E x p : e x p re s s io n
v a lu e
n a m e : P C D A TA
t y p e : C D A TA
va lu e -t y p e : C D A TA
d ia lo g -re f : ID R E F
G e t _ va lu e ()
A s s ig n _ va lu e ()
Final Comments
 There is much room for improvement in the
standardization of U.S. DoD IETMs
 The primary U.S. DoD IETM database
specification 87269 is being examined to
achieve improvements in interoperability at the
source data level and improvements in Web
compatibility
 The Joint IETM Architecture is designed to
improve interoperability at the user level