NATO MSG-086 “Simulation Interoperability”

Slide 1NATO UNCLASSIFIEDNMSG Conference, Stockholm, 18 October 2012

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


– 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: Catalin Ciul– SWE: Fredrik Jonsson, Lennart Olsson– TUR: Mesut Güney, Halit Oguztüzün, Kurtulus Bektas

MSG-086 is a multi-national effort under the auspices of NATO STO


1. Get common understanding of simulation system interoperability and of the structure of interoperability.

2. Get common understanding of interoperability aspects related to the different levels of interoperability.

3. 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.

4. Get common understanding of the development of these information products by providing prototypes.

MSG-086 has 4 main objectives during its 3-year term and focuses on the DSEEP


The DSEEP (IEEE 1730) is a international standard for a process model for distributed simulations

Define Simulation Environment

Objectives

Perform Conceptual

Analysis

Design Simulation Environment

Develop Simulation Environment

Integrate & Test Simulation

Environment

Execute simulation

Analyze Data and Evaluate Results

DSEEP =Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process


MSG-086 is convinced that the higher levels of simulation interoperability need more attention

LCIMLevel 5

Dynamic Interoperability

Level 4Pragmatic Interoperability

Level 3Semantic Interoperability

Level 2Syntactic Interoperability

Level 0No Interoperability

Level 1Technical Interoperability

Level 6Conceptional Interoperability

increasing quality of Interoperability

Model building /Abstraction

Simulation /Implementation

Network /Connectivity

Standards available(e.g., TCP/IP, HLA, DIS, RPR FOM)

Many problems, yetstandards are missing

A. Tolk et al., “Ontology Driven Interoperability – M&S Applications”, Whitepaper for I/ITSEC 2006.


• 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

45 interoperability issues were identified which are regularly observed operational problems


• 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

All interoperability issues are described by MSG-086 using a common schema


• 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)

All interoperability issues are categorized into 9 issue groups


Example: Issue Group “Fidelity”

Issue nr Issue title

FI-01 Lack of formalized description for entity aggregations

FI-02 Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution

FI-03 Lack of agreed classifications for data fidelity levels

FI-04 Lack of formalized transfer mediation functions between incompatible entity resolution and or data fidelity levels

FI-05 Lack of agreed critical behaviours and corresponding algorithms

FI-06 Inconsistent Human Machine Interfaces


Topic Documented issueProblem definition Unrealistic model performance effects are results of lack of fidelity.

For example; unrealistic radar coverage, 100% hit probability. For the models of physical systems (i.e., systems that may have a physical counterpart in the real world) the Model’s behavior are implemented via certain algorithms using physical laws. If two interacting simulators do not implement those behavioral algorithms in the same way then even if data mappings are provided and technical interoperability is achieved, due to inconsistent level of physical realism fair fight issues may arise.

LCIM Level Level 6 – Conceptual Interoperability

DSEEP step The origin of this issue is at steps 3.1 and 3.3, and it can be observed at step 4.3.

FEAT fedagree:modeling (…)

… …

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


Most interoperability issues are located in the planning phases of the DSEEP

Issues[Counts]

DSEEP steps1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0123456789

10

Perform conceptual analysis

Design simulation environment

Develop simulation environment


Concentration of many interoperability issues in just a few steps of the DSEEP (qualitative analysis!)

DSEEP steps1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2

0

1

2

3

4

Develop scenario

Develop conceptual model

Establish simulation environment agreements

Issues[Counts]

Design simulation environment


• 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

MSG-086 decided to focus its further efforts on scenario development


MSG-086 proposes a three-step scenario development process within the DSEEP

Define Simulation Environment

Objectives

Perform Conceptual

Analysis

Design Simulation Environment

Develop Simulation Environment

Integrate & Test Simulation

Environment

Execute simulation

Analyze Data and Evaluate Results

Executable scenario

Conceptual scenario

Operational scenario

“A scenario is a description of the hypothetical or real area, environment, means, objectives, and events during a specified time frame related to events of interest.”

MSG-053 (“Rapid Scenario Generation for Simulation Applications”)


• 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

Operational scenarios 1 Define simulation environment

objectives


„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.“

ExampleOperational scenario


• 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

Conceptual scenarios2 Perform conceptual

analysis


ExampleConceptual scenario

State Course of events

Objects and units Blue Helicopter Type: AH-1 similar helicopter Altitude: 100m Speed: 45 m/s to North Maneuver: straight flight Position: 0,0,-100 Red Infantry Weapon Type: Manpad Initial Position: -1060,-1060,0 Missile Type: IR Missile Missile Fuse: Proximity Fuse

Geography …

Interaction events1. Time: 5 seconds

Spotting helicopter

2. Time: 10 secondsMissile launch from position (-1060,-1060,0)

3. Flare dispenseMissile slant range: 1100mDispense number: 12Initial dispense time: 0.6 secDispense interval time: 0.1 sec

…


• 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, …

Executable scenario 4 Develop simulation environment


ExampleExecutable scenario


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

11.11.21.31.4

2

3

44.14.24.34.3.14.3.24.3.34.4

IntroductionMotivationPurposeScopeIntended Audience

References

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Definitions and terminologyCommon definitions of “Scenario”Scenario definition proposed by MSG-053Types of scenariosOperational scenarioConceptual scenarioExecutable scenarioAuxiliary terms

55.15.25.3

6

77.17.27.37.47.57.67.6.17.6.27.6.3

8

Content of a scenarioInitial stateCourse of eventsTermination conditions

Components and building blocks of scenarios

Maturity levels of scenario specificationLevel 0 – No written scenario specificationLevel 1 – Unstructured scenario specificationLevel 2 – Standardized scenario specificationLevel 3 – Formal scenario specificationRelation of maturity levels to scenario typesExisting standards and toolsStandards for maturity levels 0 and 1Standards for maturity level 2Standards for maturity level 3

Integration with NATO Architecture Framework


• 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

Remaining work of MSG-086 until end of our term in fall 2013


• 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

Outlook


• 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

One slide summary


Limiting issues for true simulation interoperability: A survey done by MSG-086

and resulting recommendations

Robert Siegfried

aditerna GmbHOtto-Hahn-Str. 13 B

85521 Riemerling/MunichGermany

[email protected]

NATO MSG-086 “Simulation Interoperability”

Documents

structure of interoperability

recommendationsnato

predecessor of msg

dseepslide nr

auspices of nato sto

common schema slide

matthias hahnslide nr

execution processslide