A Crisis Response Situation Model
Juliette Mattioli
Nicolas Museux
Miniar Hemaissia
Claire Laudy
Thales Research & Technology
RD128, 91767 Palaiseau Cedex – France
{juliette.mattioli - nicolas.museux- miniar.hemaissia - claire.laudy}@thalesgroup.com
Abstract - The first challenge in crisis response
management is the early damage and needs assessment
based on all incoming information from various sources
such as on field deployed sensors or human
observations. Likewise, it is important for an efficient
crisis response management to make sure that
ambiguous terminology is clearly defined, and
methodologies and indicators explained. To support the
damage assessment, all the relevant items need to be
formally modelled and represented in a machinereadable format. For that purpose, a formal ontology
would provide the basis for the verbal description of the
current situation understanding as well as the
underlying semantics for any fusion related tasks and
display operations.
Keywords: early response crisis management, damage
assessment, situation theory, ontology, situation
understanding.
1
Early response motivation
In the crisis management process, early response begins
when an emergency situation has occurred or, in some
cases, when warning signs indicate that an emergency is
imminent. It relates to the emergency operation actions
conducted during the impact of an event and the shortterm aftermath. Responding to a Disaster, an Incident, a
Crisis, or an Emergency (such event is called in the sequel
a DICE) in a timely and effective manner can reduce
deaths and injuries, contain secondary effects, and reduce
the resulting economic losses and social disruption. Such
response actions include: preservation of life; care of sick,
injured, and dependent people (first aid, medical,
evacuation facilities, and welfare); and provision of
essential services (lifeline utilities, food, shelter, public
information, and media). During the post-incident first
hours, the CRCT (Crisis Response Coordination Team) is
confronted with uncertainties in making critical decisions.
There is a real need to gather situational information (e.g.,
information on casualties), together with information
about available resources (e.g., medical facilities, rescue
and law enforcement units). Then, the early assessment
process allows the CRCT team to develop a picture of the
overall impact of a DICE and to establish priorities for
response and early recovery efforts (fig.1 describes the
response process) . Therefore, the overall purpose of the
assessment is to provide information and to make
recommendations that will enable timely decisions on
appropriate response to a DICE situation.
analysis Crisis Response Process Model
CrisisResponseActivities
SituationUnderstanding
DICE (Disaster,
Incident,
Crisis or
Emergency)
+ ContextualInformation
+ DecisionalInformation
+ SituationalInformatio n
+ Strategies
+ Stakeholders
+ Access Control
+ Cordons Establishment
+ Dama ge Assessment & Ne eds
+ Emergency Medical Assistance
+ Eva cuation & Reloca tion
+ Immediate Relie f Activities
+ Search & Rescue
Figure 1: Crisis response process
Due to the fact that some significant issues still exist, the
objective of a Crisis Response Management (CRM)
support system is to propose at the tactical level, some
new capabilities in order to provide assistance to the
CRCT during the early response phase. Such a system will
provide the situation understanding picture for providing a
preliminary damage and needs assessment report,
analysing the matching of the means needed for victim
evacuation with the available resources and proposing to
the users solutions to enable the effective allocation of the
different resources (rescue team, rescue vehicles, health
facilities). Therefore, it has to provide decision aids
mainly through a situation understanding picture including
collection display and visualization of information
concerning the location of the health resources (hospital,
ambulance, people, materials, etc), of the DICE itself (e.g.
casualty assessment), and tools to support the response
itself.
2
Needs of situation understanding
to support early responses.
Gathering and analysing relevant information from the
DICE scene is on of the cornerstones of the CRM process.
But often the vital pieces of information are spread across
several formats, and must be combined in accordance with
(i) the objectives of early response (immediate life saving,
search and rescue, and medical first aid), (ii) their
reliability and relevance, (iii) their semantics, in order to
get the complete set of information desired at the right
time and (iv) their temporality (the information
obsolescence and up-date). Up to now, each format has
been processed on the basis of appropriate and distinct
theories. Moreover, no model is available to support an indepth understanding of the situation in order to assist with
decision-making in such complex situations. Furthermore,
due to limitations of information coming from a single
source (uncertainty, missing observations, etc), there is a
lot to gain by integrating and fusing multi-source
information (both mechanical and human). Then, it is
necessary to model and specify context and situation in a
way such that multiple entities of the CRCT can easily
exchange, share and reuse their knowledge on context and
situation. Nevertheless, Kokar, in [11], argues that it is a
much more difficult problem to automatically construct a
good human-oriented representation of a situation than to
achieve situation assessment as it is described in the Level
2 of the JDL data fusion model, because, it is not only
knowing objects [8] but also relations between them. The
main induced difficulties are the assessment of the
relations, their relevance, the complexity of their
derivation algorithms and, the uncertainty dimension of
these objects and their relations.
Our approach, presented in this paper, to support CRM
involves the use of situation theory frame to propose
CRM ontology for supporting the knowledge sharing
across the various CRCT stakeholders, by establishing the
fundamental events and objects of crisis domain and
higher-order relations relevant to early response activities.
This ontology thus represents “what” is reasoned, but does
not explicitly represent “how” to perform the emergency
response. This last issue to support the response units
could be for example addressed [12] by a based multiagent system approach enhanced by some negotiation
protocols for emergency medical assistance activities.
Section 3 of this paper provides a brief overview of the
basic concepts of situation theory, used to formally define
our CRM ontology, presented in more detail in section 4.
3
Situation Theory in brief
Before we provide a brief overview of Situation Theory,
we define the terms “data” and “information”: data are
simply units of information including perceptions,
numbers, observations or figures. Data sometimes conflict
with one another, for example, when two individuals
report widely differing perceptions of the same DICE.
Information, on the other hand, is “useful data”. Data
become information when they are meaningful, relevant
and understandable to particular people at particular times
and places, for particular purposes. One major challenge
in situation awareness, especially in damage assessment,
is to sort out useless, irrelevant and contradictory data to
make sure that analysis is done based on the best possible
information. Moreover, in all kinds of emergencies,
decision-makers will need to start by building up a picture
consisting of the location of people, their conditions, their
needs, the services still available and the resources that
have survived: that is the situation understanding picture.
It should, at least, pay particular attention to damage and
needs assessment to support the assignment of emerging
priorities to the response activities.
Therefore, software development needs to define an
environmental model which permits to reason on how the
CRCT agents perform their activities and how their effects
lead them to reach their missions. This step can be
initiated through end-user interviews, reading appropriate
documentation, through an analysis of documented
lessons learned, and through an active participation in
training courses and/or exercises/demonstrations with end
users.
To construct this model, we use the the formal framework
provided by the “situation theory” [1][2][3] for
developing our CRM ontology describing damage
information and knowledge. It will give computer-stored
specification of concepts, properties, and relationships
being important to describe the crisis response domain of
expertise; it will also provide principled, structured, and
queriable frameworks for modelling knowledge and
encoding data semantics regardless of their low level
representation [13].
3.1
Infons, situation and types
In order to model diverse concepts and objects involved in
the crisis management, we have to represent at different
level of abstraction, relevant objects and relations [14]. To
reach this goal, Jon Barwise and John Perry [2] introduced
a new mathematical theory called “situation theory” to
support the analysis of the way things in the world can
represent and convey information. It is a unified
mathematical theory of meaning and information content,
based on intuitions basically coming from set theory and
logic [7]. In [3], they wrote of situations:
“The world consists not just of objects, or of objects,
properties and relations, but of objects having properties
and standing in relations to one another. And there are
parts of the world, clearly recognized (although not
precisely individuated) in common sense and human
language. These parts of the world are called situations.
Events and episodes are situations in time, scenes are
visually perceived situations, changes are sequences of
situations, and facts are situations enriched (or polluted)
by language.”
Then, the world is viewed as a collection of objects, sets
of objects, properties, and relations. Individuals are
conceived as invariants; having properties and standing in
relations, they persist in time and space. All individuals,
including spatio-temporal locations, have properties (such
as “belonging to the medical emergency unit”) and stand
in relations to one another (like “being earlier”, “need of
dispatch physician”).
The earliest formal notion of situation was introduced by
[3] as means of giving more realistic formal semantics for
speech acts than what was then available. In contrast with
a “world” which determines the value of every
proposition, a situation corresponds to the limited parts of
reality we perceive, reason about, and live in.
According to the theory, objects or individuals are
physical entities, i.e. they have spatio-temporal locations,
and their identities remain stable during their lifetime.
Attributes are properties of individuals that do not relate
them to other individuals (e.g. the availability of a
resource). In contrast to attributes, relations relate objects
with objects (e.g. an explosion causes facility damages).
As situation theory is not a theory of information; rather a
framework for describing, analysing, and understanding
information flow, it will be the basis for our “crisis
response management” ontology composed by infons (a
set of interrelated objects), situations, types and relations,
with:
ƒ Infon: Information has the general form a property P
holds / does not hold for the set of objects a1 ,…, a n . Item
of
information
is
modelled
by
an
infon
P, a1 ,…, an , h, k , p where a1 ,…, a n are individuals, P is
an m-place relation ( m ≥ n ), h and k are location and
time, and p represents its polarity (0 or 1). Infons may be
combined using AND (∧), OR (∨), and situation-bounded
quantification (∀,∃). A fact: is simply an infon with
polarity 1.
ƒ Situations: They are parts of the world from which
information is extracted. Let φ be an infon representing a
item of information. If a situation s makes this information
true, this is denoted s |= φ. Therefore, a real situation is a
set of anchored infons (i.e., those with no unbound
variables or no parameters) with polarity 1 in the real
world.
ƒ Types: They represent the uniformities that cut across
infons. For example
CaseType, Explosion, Atotcha,11/03/2004, 1
and
CaseType, Explosion, SantaEugenia, 11/03/2004, 1
have common information that is “an explosion occurred
on the 11th of March 2004”. What differs in this
representation is the name of the station. The type
abstracting among these infons can be defined as
{
ϕ= s
s=
CaseType , Explosion, x, 11/03/2004 , 1
}
which is the type of any situation about a station
(represented in the type by the parameter x ) where the
event is an explosion. Given an object, x , and a type, T,
we write x : T to indicate that the object x is of type T.
If s is one of them, this is written s |= ϕ and we say that s
support ϕ. If s = P, a1 , … , a n ;1 (resp. s = P, a1 , … , a n ;0 )
then it means that in situation s the objects a1 ,…, a n stand
(resp. do not stand) in the relation P.
3.2
Constraints
To go further, inference and reasoning are facilitated by
the notion of constraints [4], that provide conceptual
situation mechanism to capture how agents make
inferences and act in a rational way. There are binary
relations
between
situation
types
(e.g.
CaseType, Explosion, x, t , 1 ). Informally, situation types can
be defined as situations without spatio-temporal locations.
Constraints may be usages, physical laws, business rules,
etc. For example, consider a situation showing Explosion,
it contains information that there are damages or injuries
because of the constraint that earthquake usually implies
damage or injury. This constraint is denoted by Explosion
⇒ DamageInjury (This is read as “Explosion involves
DamageInjury.”).
Given a constraint C that links a situation type S with a
situation type R. C can give rise to the acquisition of
information as follows: If s is a situation of type S, then
the constraint C tells you there is a situation1 r of type R.
3.3
Uncertainty
Early in all emergencies, but especially in rapid onset
disasters, there will be great uncertainty about what the
problems actually are. These uncertainties include: the
area affected, the numbers of people requiring immediate
help, the levels of damage to services and “life-lines”, the
level of continuing or emerging threat and the possibilities
for providing help. In fact, much of the information upon
which tactical response plans were made was 12- to 24hours old, and in the early phase, response units are
sometimes dispatched to areas with an incomplete view of
the situation. Then, uncertain information flows come
from that constraints2 do not always hold. Conditional
constraint is written φ ⇒ ϕ B , which highlights the fact
that the constraint φ ⇒ ϕ holds for a given situation if the
background conditions captured within B are satisfied by
that situation:
ƒ if the situation satisfies the background conditions,
the use of the constraint is certain as well as the resulting
flow.
ƒ if the background conditions are not satisfied, the
constraint cannot be used.
ƒ if it is not known whether the background conditions
are satisfied by the situation, the use of the constraint is
uncertain, and the resulting flow is uncertain.
Consequently it is necessary to model the knowledge
domain to compensate for the imperfect nature
(incomplete, imprecise, contradictory) of the information
flow in order to infer new information, more synthetic,
more interpretable and exploitable by higher-level
advanced processing services (situation awareness, risk
anticipation, …).
It is important to notice that information fusion lies at a
more abstract level than data fusion, since information are
not only constituted by rough data supplied by physical
sensors, but also by additional elements of very different
nature such as testimony, expert opinions, judgments,
convictions, appreciations, etc. Usual techniques like
Bayesian probabilities become then of less interest since
they are not suited well for coping with this latter kind of
subjective information. On the contrary, the Transferable
Belief Model [16] (TBM), an extension of the DempsterShafer theory [6] of Evidence, can be considered as a
federating theoretical and computational framework. In
1
r may be equal to s, or be s at a later time, or be some
entirely separate situation.
2
The constraints that do not always hold are called
conditional.
our approach, conditional constraints will be weighted by
a TBM measure in order to represent knowledge in a more
realistic and authentic way, to permit the quantification of
the amount of imperfections coming from objective data
as well as emergency experts’ beliefs and decision
makers’ opinions. Therefore, an “uncertain” infon will be
defined as P, a1 ,…, an ; h, k , m where m represents its
uncertainty weight (which could be for example any
probability distribution or in our case, a belief mass).
4
4.1
From Situation Model to a Crisis
Response Management Ontology
Damage Assessment
Early assessment purpose is to inform the CRCT of the
severity of the DICE to cope with the capacities,
providing the information needed to start mobilizing
resources from outside the affected area to help. Then, the
damage assessment action is devoted to conducting
ground and aerial surveys to determine the scope of the
damage, the location, casualties, the impact on the
community resulting from a DICE and the status of key
facilities. Receipt of damage notification will come from
112, Police, Fire and Rescue units and other sources such
as the sensors and TV news. In order to support CRCT, a
shared situation understanding picture has to materialise
the “decisional environment” and so makes clear why
emergency operations planning is necessary. It should, at
a minimum, draw from the area's hazard identification and
analysis, including relative probability and impact of the
hazards, geographic areas likely to be affected by
particular hazards, vulnerable critical facilities (nursing
homes, schools, hospitals, etc.), population distribution,
characteristics and locations of special populations
(institutionalised persons), and more.
Thanks to the OASIS3 consortium, most of the relevant
situation items will be described through the Definition of
the Tactical Situation Object (TSO) [16], in order to
contain as a minimun the following information:
ƒ Identification information: it shall be identified in an
unambiguous way. It shall also describe who the
originator of the information is and when the information
was created.
ƒ Description of the DICE: the TSO is one solution to
provide to other entities its own view of the case such as:
the type of the case, its extent, the number of casualties,
the consequences on the environment, its criticality, etc.
ƒ Description of the resources: the CRCT is interested
to know which resources are already used, which
resources are available, through the list of resources
(including the human resources), their availability, their
position, and their capabilities.
ƒ Description of the actions: it is also very important to
inform the others of the activities which are in progress or
which are foreseen, so that the co-ordination is efficient.
Information on the tasks which are on-going, on their
status, on the teams and resources which are engaged for
them, on their planning, must be available…
Such a situation model can be partially defined by an
ontology that describes a set of entities (concrete and/or
abstract) and the relationships they can have with each
other. Therefore, objects include individuals, relations,
spatial locations, temporal locations, situations, types,
parameters, etc.
4.2
Contextual Infons
Many researchers agree to the notion that the context of
something is a collection of relevant data and information
from the environment, which describe the situation of that
entity. In our application domain, contextual infons
(contextual information item) should provide answer to
the following questions:
ƒ What is the type of the DICE ?
ƒ Are there expected developments/likely secondary
hazards in the affected area?
ƒ At what time did the DICE occur (local)?
ƒ Where are areas affected (geographic)? What is the
size of involved area?
ƒ What is population density and what are settlement
pattern building type in that area?
ƒ What are current and forecasted local weather
conditions?
Then, contextual infon is given by
T , CaseId , GeographicalInformation,
InformationSource, WeaterInformation, DeclDatime, n, t; i
where T is a contextual property, CaseId provides the
identifier of the DICE, GeographicalInformation gives
location information (which may be point or extended
region, or its name), i the polarity or any distribution
which captures uncertainty. Figure 2 provides the
associated class.
class ContextualInformation
GeographicalInformation
+ Are a
+ Are aDe scription
+ Are aSize
+ Are aType
+ Ge ographicalDescription
+ LocalisationCompone nt
+ PopulationDensity
+ Se ttlme ntPatte rn
InformationSource
+ ExternalSource s
+ HumanSource
+ MariusSyste mSources
+ Othe rInformationSource
CaseInformation
+ Case Nature
+ Se ve rityLevel
+ Case Status
+ Case Trend
+ Case Type
WeatherInformation
+ HumidInformation
+ IcyInformation
+ Thunde rstormInformation
+ VisibilityInformation
+ W eatherValue dInformation
+ W indyInformation
Figure 2: Contextual informal items
Other items are defined by:
3
OASIS is an EU FP6 project, and the acronym stands for
Open Advanced System for Improved crisiS management
Contextual Item
CaseInformation
GeoInformation
InformationSource
WeatherInformation
DeclDatime
Description
All classes of case properties
which give factual information
on the current case.
Information on the geography of
the case for each affected areas.
The origin of the declaration of
the case.
Weather conditions
It provides the date and time
when the case has been declared
Contextual properties could be defined either by the
property itself or by its extension, for example:
Contextual
Properties
CaseNature
CaseType
CaseSeverity
CaseStatus
CaseTrend
Description
The nature tells if the case is accidental,
criminal or terrorist.
The type of the case (Explosion,
Earthquake, Fire, Industrial Accident,
Landslide, Volcanic Eruption, Tsunami,
Windstorm, …)
The seriousness of the case.
The current status of the case.
Information of the foreseen evolution of the
case (increasing / decreasing / stable)
As any emergency has to be classified by the CRCT
commander into one of three Response Levels according
to its scope and its magnitude, CaseSeverity property is
given by extension with:
CaseSeverity
LEVEL_1
LEVEL_2
LEVEL_3
UNKNOWN
4.3
Definition
Controlled emergency situation without
serious threat to life, health, or property,
which requires no assistance beyond
initial first responders.
Limited emergency situation with some
threat to life, health, or property, but
confined to limited area involving small
population.
Full emergency situation with major
threat to life, health, or property,
involving large population and/or
multiple municipalities.
Severity unknown
Situational infons
Situational Infons gather information on the magnitude of
the DICE and the extent of its impact on both the
population and the infrastructure of the society. There are
combined with the information of needs for resources and
services of immediate emergency measures to save and
sustain the lives of the affected population. The gathering
process is conducted at the site of a DICE or at the
location of a displaced population. At this stage (early
phase), speed of reporting is more important than precise
figures.
Then, situational infons are defined by two basic infons:
Damage and Casualty, where for example, the casualty
items provides the list of the actual casualties
Causualities
CasualtyId
Description
It provides the identifier of the
casualty
It provides the type of the casualty
CasualtyType
It described the origin of the
InformationSource
declaration of the casualty
It provides the date and time when the
DeclDatime
casualty has been declared
It provides the geographical
CasualtyLocation
information of the casualty. It is
composed by a string representing the
name of the location (track designation
or highway marker, street address, …)
and its GIS/map co-ordinates (latitude,
longitude, height).
Number of people with the same
CasualtyQuantity
casualty in the same location
CasualtyPathologies It provides a description of the
pathologies observed. It can
correspond to the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)
into use in the World Health
Organization Member States.
Moreover, a damage assessment picture is constituted by
states of situation objects, their locations at given time
instants, their activities during a time interval and
meaningful relations between objects.
4.4
Decisional Infons
Early response activities give to the decision-makers the
information needed to set the objectives and policies for
emergency assistance, to take into account the priorities of
the affected people themselves and to decide how to make
best use of the existing resources for emergency
assistance. For example, building collapses where victims
are trapped may require search, rescue and medical
resources, release of hazardous materials may require
large-scale evacuation, etc. This last stage involves
allocating and scheduling resources including people,
equipment and supplies to meet victim evacuation
objectives. For that purpose, resources and services for
immediate emergency measures to save and sustain the
lives of the affected population are identified and
modelled.
For example, each resource element (human, vehicles,
other hardware, etc...) describes each individual resource
which is involved in the emergency response. It contains
the following information:
Resource Item
ResourceType
ResourceId
Description
Type of the resource (rescue
team, vehicle, tent, water purifier,
etc...).
A unique identifier of the
resource
ResourceDescription
ResourceQuantity
ResourceUnit
ResourceStatus
ResourceLocation
A textual additional information,
for providing additional
description of the resource
The quantity of this type of
resource
The unit for the quantity. (e.g. kg)
The status of this resource.
The geographical information on
the resource. It is composed by a
string representing the name of
the location (track designation or
highway marker, street address,
…) and its GIS/map co-ordinates
(latitude, longitude, height).
ResourceCompetency
The main domain of competency
of the resource
ResourceStatus could be one of these attribute: Actived,
Available, Burned_Out, Denied, Destroyed, Immobilized,
In_Maintenance, Operational, Reserved, Used, …
All the above information items are defined through a
CRM (Crisis Response Management) ontology. The
figure 3 (based on Protégé 3.2 [15]) give an idea of its
complexity.
Figure 3: Crisis Response Management (CRM) ontology schema (based on Protégé 3.2 [15],[9])
5
Conclusion
The first challenge in crisis response management is the
early damage and needs assessment based on all incoming
information from various sources such as deployed
sensors or human observations. Likewise, it is important
to make sure that ambiguous terminology is clearly
defined, and methodologies and indicators explained, so
that CRCT can use the data and the information correctly.
Finally, data and information should be geo-referenced to
include information such as the latitude/longitude, geocode, gazetteer place name and administrative unit so that
the data can be entered into a Geographic Information
System (GIS) and mapped. Nevertheless, information
needed by each civilian and military emergency response
units differs according to its mission, the situation on the
ground, the needs of the population in the afflicted zone
and the phase of the response. The experiences and the
lessons learnt from recent real-world relief efforts and
post-conflict recovery operations show that information
sharing in the crisis mitigation sector is difficult to
coordinate due to the need to address the multiorganizational issues. It also suggested the need to create
information standards such as the Common Alerting
Protocol (CAP) [17][18] or at least a common culture. The
problem of heterogeneous information and knowledge
sharing gave rise to use of a formal framework as a
common information and knowledge representation
model. The “situation theory” principles are the basis of
this formal framework. Then, from the “Tactical situation
Object” [16], we derive a “crisis response management”
ontology, which will facilitate information retrieval over
data of distributed and heterogeneous information sources;
the semantic integration of information and a priori
knowledge and which will also support the design of a
situation awareness picture and the user interface
specification of a CRM support system.
6
Acknowledgement
This work is partly funded by the MARIUS research
project (PASR-2005-107900) under the PASR Program
(Preparatory Action on the enhancement of the European
industrial potential in the field of Security Research).
References
[1] Barwise J. (1989). The Situation in Logic, CSLI
Lecture Notes 17, Stanford, 1989.
[2] Barwise J. & Perry J. (1983). Situations and
Attitudes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1983
[3] Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1980) The Situation
Underground, in Stanford Working Papers in Semantics,
Vol. 1, eds. J. Barwise and I. Sag, Stanford Cognitive
Science Group 1980, Section D, pp.1–55.
[14] Llinas, J. et al (2004), Revisiting the JDL data fusion
model II, Proc. of the 7th International Conference on
Information Fusion, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
[15] http://protege.stanford.edu
[16] EU- FP6 - Project OASIS (2006) – Open Advanced
System for Disaster and Emergency Management
Definition of the OASIS Tactical Situation Object – Part
of the D-TA2_06 (OASIS external interfaces)
http://www.oasis-fp6.org/documents/OASIS_TA21_DDD
_041_DSF.pdf
[17] OASIS (2005) Common Alert Protocol Version 1.1,
OASIS
Standard,
Octobe2005
http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/download.php/14759/emergencyCAPv1.1.pdf
[4] Barwise J. and Seligman (1997) The Logic of
Information Flow, Cambridge tracts in theoretical
computer science 44, 1997, Cambridge UP.
[18] OASIS (2005) Emergency Data Exchange
Language: Distribution Element. OASIS Committee Draft
19
2005
http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/download.php/
14163/EDXL_DE_Spec_v1.0.html
[5] Biermann, J. (2004) Challenges in high level
information fusion. In the 7th Int. Conf. on Information
Fusion Proceedings, pp. 526–527, 2004.
[19] Smets, Ph, and Kennes, R.. (1994) The Transferable
Belief Model. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 66, pp. 191–
243, 1994.
[6] Dempster. A.P. (1967) Upper and lower probabilities
induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, No. 38: pp. 325-339, 1967.
[7] Devlin, K. (1991) Logic and Information,
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[20] Smets, Ph. (1998). The Transferable Belief Model
for Quantified Belief Representation. Handbook of
Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management
Systems. In D. Gabbay and Ph. Smets, Series Editors, Ph.
Smets, Kluwer, Doordrecht, 1(Quantified Representation
of Uncertainty & Imprecision):267-301, 1998.
[8] Endsley M. (1995). Toward a theory of situation
awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, No. 37,
Vol. 1, pp. 32-64. 1995
[21] Steinberg, A.N. (2004) Unification across JDL data
Fusion Levels 1 and 2. In the 7th Int. Conf. on
Information Fusion Proceedings, vol. I, 2004.
[9] Gennari, J.H. et al (2003), The Evolution of Protégé:
An Environment for Knowledge-Based Systems
Development. Int’l J. Human-Comp. Studies, vol. 58, no.
1, pp. 89–123
[10] Kohlas, J, and Monney. P.A.. (1995) A
Mathematical Theory of Hints: An Approach to
Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. Lecture Notes in
Economics and Mathematical Systems No. 425. SpringerVerlag, 1995.
[11] Kokar M. (2004). Situation awareness: Issues and
challenges. In the 7th Int. Conf. on Information Fusion
Proceedings, vol. I, pp. 533–534, 2004.
[12] Hemaissia, M. et al (2006). Cooperation-based
Multilateral Multi-issue Negotiation
for
Crisis
Management. In AAMAS'06 Int. Workshop on Rational,
Robust and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems
(RRS 2006), pp 77-95, Hakodate, Japan, May 2006
[13] Laudy, C. et al (2005): Cognitive Situation
awareness for Information Superiority, IST Panel on
Information Fusion for Command and Control, The
Netherlands, 2005.