IDEAS Group
Model for Interoperability
Ian Bailey, UK
Fariba Hozhabrafkan, UK
The IDEAS Group
• International Defense Enterprise Architecture
Specification for exchange
• Australia, Canada, UK, USA, NATO, Sweden
(observers)
Objective — To deliver a unified specification for the exchange of
architectural documentation and artefacts between coalition
partners.
Coalition
• Australia, Canada, UK and USA have a history of military
coalition
• Each nation is pursuing its own version of net-centric
warfare
• Need for some degree of international net-centricity
• Shared situational picture
• Collaborative Engagement Capability
• etc.
• Each nation is developing its own architectural
framework
• Requirement to share architectural information between nations
to enable interoperability at the operational and system levels
The Team
UK
Jon Keefe (MOD),
Fariba Hozhabrafkan, Ian Bailey (MOD Contractors)
US
Mike Wayson (OSD), Francisco Loaiza (IDA),
Bill Tracey (LMIT), Dave McDaniel (Silver Bullet)
CA
Matthew Wong (DND)
AU
Kim Lambert, Doug Wilson (ADO)
Observers:
NATO
Svein Olaussen (NAF Syndicate Lead)
Sweden
Mikael Hagenbo (Swedish Armed Forces)
Approach
1. Individually evaluate existing architecture data models to
determine the degree of compatibility between the data
models, and provide recommendations for the way ahead in
developing the architectural exchange specification.
2. Identify gaps and deficiencies with respect to the IDEAS
requirements, and recommend solutions – i.e. rationalise raw
requirements into a formal model.
3. Define the technical approach for IDEAS implementation and
usage—the candidates include XMI and XML. The possible
use of web services and semantic web technology for
interoperability
4. Pilot implementation and interoperability test cases.
5. Establish an international IDEAS change management
process.
Structure
• Layered approach
• Starting from first principles to ensure common understanding at the most
fundamental level
• Reaching down to country-specific definitions whose meaning may need
to be understood by other nations
fundamental concepts:
classes, instances, properties
foundation
high-level patterns (upper ontology)
commonly used relationships:
whole-part, sequence, partipation, etc.
common objects (agreed taxonomy)
internationally accepted terms:
person, organization, materiel, etc.
national
extension
national
extension
national
extension
national
extension
terminology specific to nations that
which may be useful to other nations
- e.g. Bowman, Bradley FV, etc.
Foundation
• The nations involved were using different modelling
paradigms:
• Entity-Relationship
• Object-Oriented (inc. UML Meta-Models)
• Ontology
• All of these modelling approaches are based on formal
logic and set theory, but each is subtly different –
especially as users tend to adopt a given “style”
• These differences were making it hard to establish a common
approach between the nations – there was too much scope for
misunderstanding between parties
• To mitigate these problems, the IDEAS Model defines a
foundational layer (based on IEEE Candidate Upper
Ontologies such as SUMO & ISO15926)
Foundation Elements
Object
+tuplePlace
*
1 +firstTuplePlace
{subsets
tuplePlace}
«instanceOf»
Element
Type
1 +secondTuplePlace
{subsets
tuplePlace}
tuple
• Terminology used is very formal
couple
• Not for end-user use
• Purpose is solely to establish a formal mathematic foundation to
the model
• Key objects are:
• Element – an individual thing – e.g. USS Theodore Roosevelt
• Type – a class of thing – e.g. Nimitz Class carrier
• Tuple/Couple – relationships between objects – e.g. USS
Theodore Roosevelt is a instance of a Nimitz class vessel
Foundation Patterns
• The foundation level also establishes
fundamental relationships:
class Pow er Type Pattern
class Type-Instance Pattern
Power Type Pattern
Type-Instance Pattern
This pattern specialises the Type-Instance Pattern to establish the relationship between a Type and its powertype
class Super-Subtype Pattern
This pattern establishes a relationship between a Type and an Object that is an instance of that Type - i.e. class membership
Sub-Supertype Pattern
Obj ect
+tuplePlace
*
1 +firstTuplePlace
+instance
1
Obj ect a{redefines
The sub-supertype pattern establishes
relationship between two Types that asserts one type is a {subsets tuplePlace}
specialization of the other - i.e. all instances
of the subtype (specialized) are instances of the supertype
secondTuplePlace}
+tuplePlace
*
1 +firstTuplePlace
1 +secondTuplePlace
tuple
{subsets tuplePlace}
{subsets tuplePlace}
+instance
1
{redefines
secondTuplePlace}
Obj ect
+tuplePlace
*
tuple
Type
+type
1
{redefines
firstTuplePlace}
1 +firstTuplePlace
{subsets tuplePlace}
Type
tuple
+type
instanceOfType
couple
couple
instanceOfType
1
{redefines
firstTuplePlace}
Type
1 +supertype
1 firstTuplePlace}
{redefines
{redefines instance}
1 +subtype1
{redefines type}
{redefines secondTuplePlace}
Pow ertype
+powertype
superSubType
instanceOfPow erType
1 +secondTuplePlace
{subsets tuplePlace}
couple
1 +secondTuplePlace
{subsets tuplePlace}
High-Level Patterns
• To assist in the development of the IDEAS model, the
nations have adopted the BORO (Business Object ReEngineering Ontology) methodology http://www.boroprogram.org
• This methodology is particularly useful for IDEAS
because it starts with “legacy” models and gradually
develops a common model.
• As existing models and data are subjected to the
methodology, high-level patterns start to emerge.
• So far (this is at an early stage) only one pattern has
been formally documented (whole-part)
• …though several others have been recognised (e.g.
sequence, ownership, communication, connection, etc.)
High-Level Patterns – Whole-Part
• Probably the most common of all patterns
• e.g. system-subsystem, process-subprocess, organizationsuborganization
class Whole-Part Pattern
Whole-Part Pattern
The whole-part pattern establishes a relationship between individual elements, asserting that one
element is composed of the other element.
Obj ect
+tuplePlace
*
tuple
Element
1 +whole
{redefines firstTuplePlace}
1 +part
{redefines secondTuplePlace}
1 +firstTuplePlace
{subsets tuplePlace}
couple
w holePart
1 +secondTuplePlace
{subsets tuplePlace}
Common Objects
• Some concepts are common to all architectures
• The IDEAS Group is identifying the common
concepts and placing them in the appropriate
part of the model (i.e. under the appropriate part
of the foundation)
• This work is also exposing the high-level
patterns
• The big surprise has been how many concepts
are not commonly understood between the
nations (esp. operational node, system &
capability)
Common Objects – Person &
Organization
• These elements are key to the operational
views.
• The IDEAS Model adds the concept of states to
allow for changes over time (e.g. OV-6b)
• All descend from Element
• Agent:
Element
• Something capable of action
• (could be op node ?)
AgentState
PersonState
OrganizationState
Agent
Person
Organization
National Extensions
• To enable international interoperability, it is necessary for
each nation to have some understanding of the others’
terminology
• Hierarchical nature of IDEAS means that these nationspecific terms descend from common objects, hence
nations can always refer back to a common level of
understanding – e.g. a Bradley FV is a light battle tank,
Bowman is a tactical radio system, etc.
• This work is also likely to generate requirements for new
common objects to bridge the semantic gap between
nations
• …and will also drive the discovery of common high-level
patterns
National Extensions Example (work in
progress)
USA::
GovernmentOrganization
USA::
PrivateSectorOrganization
Agent
OrganizationState
Model::Organization
USA::
SovereignBody
Association
AgentRelationship
Canada::
LineOrganization
Canada::
MatrixProjectOrganization
Canada::
ClientOrganization
Canada::
NonCanadianGovtOrganization
USA::
IsInReserveTo
USA::
IsInDirectSupportOf
USA::
HasOperationalCommandOver
USA::
IsInGeneralSupportOrReinforcingOf
USA::
IsAnAlternativeFor
USA::
IsUnderCommandForAdministration
USA::
HasOperationalControlOver
USA::
HasFullCommandOver
USA::
IsInGeneralSupportOf
USA::
IndirectOrganizationRelationship
USA::
CombatCommand
USA::
HasTacticalControlOver
USA::
HasTacticalCommandOf
USA::
IsAttachedTo
USA::
ProvidesLogisticServicesTo
USA::
DirectCommand
USA::
IsReinforcing
USA::
SituationDependentOrganizationRelationship
www.ideasgroup.org