Transcript S95 Arial, Bld, YW8, 37 points, 105% line spacing

Extensible Modeling
and Simulation Framework
XMSF Workshop 19-20 August 2002
MOVES Institute, Monterey California
Topic: Web Technologies and XML
Chair: Don Brutzman, NPS
1
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
2
Triage Consensus
on XMSF Challenges
Where do we agree?
Where do we disagree?
What areas most deserve
immediate work?
3
Content Transformation
slides
Player
Content
(e.g., Operations
Orders)
SVG
outline
XHTML
Who
What
Where
When
How
...
Domains:
One or more ontologies
chart
X3D
SMIL
3DVE
etc.
e.g., Integrated Media Player
4
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
M&S requirements address representations of “real
world,” communications between logical/abstract
entities, and likely even broader applications
Notable: “7 Habits of Successful Web Services”
5
7 Habits of Successful Web Services







Enablement of developer community
Services are not equal to applications
Incrementalism: results > effort
Federation: accept political uncertainties, interests
Assembly  combining
Virtualization  distillation
System stability  equilibrium or dynamic system
6
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
7
Web Services
Repositories (storage
Presentation vs Content
area network)
Many levels Approved/acceptable tagsets,
-- networked where they languages
belong and available
where they need to be
Discovery services
UDDI
LDAP
Messaging
XML-RPC
SOAP
Flexible app-based protocols
Transport
http, ftp, beep, loose/tight coupling,
support messages
8
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
9
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 timeto-market / time-to-implement – we also care
how long this work lives
10
Where do we disagree?
 We need a new M&S markup language to
express higher-level constructs unique to
M&S not available through other XML
 We need a common subset object model,
and relating that to new/legacy systems
(common functionality vs mismatched
methodologies)
11
Where do we disagree?
 Operational C4I systems and M&S systems
are converging – same from a user
perspective; different from engineering
perspective
12
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)
13
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 <->
XML <-> Web (e.g., 3-tier, 2-tier models)
14
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?
15
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
16
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 M&S on the Web



When do we show a capability, how much, what is/isn’t
available?
Cross-cutting secure (simple) “Hello World”?
Can we show with one of the other examples?
17
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
18
Additional slides produced
19
What areas most deserve
immediate work?
 Authoritative fitness for purpose, functionality, risk,
etc. for models
 Establish layers of Web services framework for
M&S (and cross-cutters like security)




Need to examine M&S 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
20
Work Groups
Web/XML Don Brutzman
Networking Mark Pullen
Modeling&Simulation Katherine L. Morse
21
Considerations
WEB/XML
Data Representation
Service Description
Graphical User Interface Description
State Transition Description
Security Paradigm
Transactions
Ontologies
Repositories
Search Engines
MODELING & SIMULATION
Backward Compatibility
Authoritative Representations
Composability
Multi-resolution modeling
Tactical System Integration
Simulation Support Services
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
22
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.
23
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).
24
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.
25
What areas most deserve
immediate work?
 Once show Web services use cases, also show
how prototyping and development tools can be
applied for M&S 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
26
Suggestions for Discussion



Identify standards for identification, authentication,
authorization, and encryption.
Recognizing XML’s 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 don’t yet exist.
27
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
28
 Order of battle
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.
29
Data Modeling
Discussion of need for
defined vocabulary and
object relationships
Person
Materiel
S-Class Object
Facility
Features
Org
Unit
Soldier
NonCombatant
Key is representing relationships and having extensible model.
30
Today’s Kids
REQUIREMENT: Prevent Boredom
Initial capability: commonality
31
What’s 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
32
What’s 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)?
33