EXtensible Modeling
and Simulation Framework
XMSF Workshop 8/19-8/20/2002
MOVES Institute, Monterey California
Topic: Modeling and Simulation
Chair: Katherine L. Morse, SAIC
1
Suggestions for Discussion
• Discuss the shared goal of bringing working M&S applications
•
•
•
•
•
matching real world problems into tactical use.
Discuss approaches for backwards compatibility to HLA/RTI
and DIS technologies which don’t constrain emergence of new
capabilities. Explore specific bridging approaches for
HLA/RTI and DIS over web channels
Discuss compatibility with the Joint Technical Architecture
(JTA), http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil
Explore integration of C4I systems to augment joint common
operational picture
Discuss approaches for playback capture
Identify technology availability: immediate, near-term (1-2
years), likely (3-5 years),problematic
3
Point Papers
1. Kalyan Perumalla Georgia Tech : Relevance of XMSF (not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
on server)
Andrzej Kapolka NPS HLA++(on server)
Alan D. Hudson Yumatech The Xj3D
Paul Diefenbach Openworlds X3D Architecture &
Extensions (not on server)
Bowen Loftin ODU VMASC Two Aspects of Composability
Sanjeev Trika Intel Corp (not on server)
Simon Goerger for Dr. Niki Goerger TRAC Monterey M&S
considerations (on server)
Richard Puk Intelligraphics Ideas for XMSF
5
Main Points
• XMSF interesting for different simulation types, some
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
technological challenges
Extend current standard (HLA) to fit the needs, fix the
shortcomings
XML can be very successfully used in supporting 3D
graphics via the internet
XMSF based on XML and X3D works great
Start with common understanding
Huge project no easy answers, more subgroups, but
worthwhile, good start
Lots of difficult M&S challenges need to be considered
High level overview comparing aims ways means
6
Open Issues
• What are performance and computation issues
•
Scalability
• Level of service for varying platforms
• Graceful degradation
•
•
Is XML always used for data representation or is it better used for
meta-data representation
Compressed streaming file formats
• How do we do time management in a highly dynamic
environment
•
•
Scheduling and synchronization
New time management services may be required
• Reduce cost of authoring and automatically converting to
another format, e.g. XML to X3D
• Composing multi namespace documents
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
7
Long Term: > 5 years
Open Issues
• How do we integrate non-simulation functionality,
e.g. network optimization
•
•
•
Simulation control API
Result analysis
Compensating for missing data
• Extend and compose object models without
bringing down the simulation
•
“Always on”
• Ease of use for developers
•
Debugging support
• Conversion between data standards
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
8
Long Term: > 5 years
Open Issues
• Integrate existing web standards
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SCORM
XML
X3D
SEDRIS
H-Anim
Meta data standards
How do we leverage the existing 3D formats
• How are aggregation and composability done
•
•
•
•
Authoring
Archiving
Selection – searching, directories, repositories
Traceability and archiving
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
9
Long Term: > 5 years
Open Issues
• Branding, licensing, and security of data
•
•
Black boxing
VV&A of extensions
• Interaction between developers and users in the standards
process
• Supporting multimodal simulations
•
•
Sound and haptics
X3D
• How do we rapidly integrate HWIL devices and live
components
• How do we reason about and integrate simulations with
different TM mechanisms
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
10
Long Term: > 5 years
Open Issues
• Standards that meet the needs of consumers, military,
and industry
•
Tradeoffs between scalability, ROI, ease of use, security
• The use of meta data for:
•
•
•
•
Systems engineering
VV&A
Valuation of data
Dynamic data acquisition
• Correlation of 2D and 3D models
•
Georeferenced
• Need to know
•
•
Security
Perception-based modeling
• Area of interest
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
11
Long Term: > 5 years
Open Issues
• Define migration path for legacy simulations
• How much of a development environment
can we define interfaces to support
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
12
Long Term: > 5 years
Use Cases – Key Opportunities
• NPSNET V – Entity Based
•
•
•
•
Swapping behaviors and data models at run time
Always on
Server based
< 60 entities
• OTB/JSAF/VR Forces/Combat XXI
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multiple output formats from a single source
2D to 3D correlation
Mapping between data standards
Extension of meta data standards
Logistics and communications
Acquisition: sensor to shooter pairing
PH/PK
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
13
Long Term: > 5 years
Use Cases – Key Opportunities
• Play in parallel with major joint exercise
•
•
•
Construction less than 1 year and $13M
Virtual, live, constructive elements
Unified Endeavor - coalition
Near Term: 1-2 years
Mid Term: 3-5 year
14
Long Term: > 5 years
Next Steps
• Define XMSF
•
•
Disagreement about next steps in the absence of this
definition
Requires coordination w/other subgroups
• Define M&S vision for XMSF focusing on
extensibility and composability
•
•
What is its relationship to HLA and JMASS?
What is its relationship to the JTA?
• Define XMSF customer base
• Identify XMSF stakeholders
• Identify other efforts we can leverage
15
Summary
• Agreed upon open issues
•
Scoped their difficulty
• Sketched use cases
•
Still need to map open issues to use cases
• Defined next steps
•
Some disagreement here about what XMSF is
• Action items
•
•
•
•
•
•
XMSF working definition
Glossary
Framework diagram
Open up XMSF web page to allow participants to post materials
Subgroup email reflectors
What’s the process for executing the next steps?
16