The Representation of Operational Terms and
Graphics in Simulation Standards: Emerging
Results and Issues
William Riggs
JHU/APL
September 20, 2011
The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099
2011 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Introduction
• Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation
(LVCAR-I) Project
– Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF): Nine Categories
Geospatial data
 Manmade environmental features
 Unit order of battle/force structure
 Electronic order of battle/network
 Platform/weapons performance and/or characteristics
 Plans/scenarios
 Behavior (including organizational and individual)
 Logistics
 Event results


2
This paper describes the relationship between syntax of C-BML, JC3IEDM,
MSDL and its impact on plans and orders incorporated in the initialization
process.
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Context: Relationship of Selected Data
Models to C4I and Simulation Environments
3
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Simulation Context
• From the CDSF perspective, composition of plans and orders prior
to initialization of the simulation environment is the primary area of
concern
– 2009 Army Study “Army Initialization Tools and Processes Analysis Final
Report” provides a useful description of the complexity and difficulty
associated with initializing C4I and Simulation systems
• Factors Driving the Initialization Problem
– Changes in the Operations Process as the nature of contemporary war
evolves, and C2 processes adapt to these changes
 Evolving operational environments: Counterinsurgency, asymmetric conflict, “hybrid
war”
– Challenges intrinsic to the initialization of C4I systems and simulation
environments in support of military exercises
 Use of digital C4I systems continue to grow, down to the lowest tactical echelon.
– Unique data representation requirements to support the differential
needs of human and unmanned actors that utilize and execute plans and
orders
 Computer-generated forces going “live”
4
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Methodological Overview
The focus of this effort is to identify what semantic and syntactical
changes need to be made to MSDL and CMBL to effectively express the
full range of plans and orders used in LVC exercises
Source Concepts
JP
1-02
Conceptual Analysis and Fusion
FM
1-02
Product
Recommendations
JC3IEDM
UJTL
AUTL
MSDL
C2LG
MCTL
 Emerging M&S standards for representation of plans and
scenarios:
Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) –
describes initial forces, missions and tasks found in
Operational Plan and Orders (OPLAN/OPORD)
Coalition Battle Management Language – used to
translate messages and topics to and from C4ISR
environment, including unmanned systems
 Both are used as part of M&S initialization
1
5
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
CBML
Classification of Terms Derived from
CBML and C2LG Concepts
 “Who” concepts: Permanent and temporary organizations that can
be subject to orders and are responsible for their execution.
 “What” concepts: Represent orderable actions.
 “What” concepts: Represent the objects of ordered actions and the
state changes resulting from the effects of such actions.
 “Where” concepts: Spatially references including graphic symbols
whose primitives are spatially referenced
 “When” concepts: temporally references, or events that have a
temporal reference (e.g. “Before Morning Nautical Twilight”).
 “How” concepts: Represent implementation instructions associated
with one or more actions.
 “Why” concepts: Represent the rationale for ordered actions.
6
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Operation Terms – Sources and Distribution
7
Source
Concepts
%Relevant
3508
Relevant
Concepts
1654
JP 1-02
FM 1-02
2002
1198
60%
Common to JP 1-02 and
FM 1-02
Total
818
516
63%
4692
2336
50%
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
47%
Operational Terms – Rough Order of
Magnitude Classification
8
Classification
JP 1-02
FM 1-02
Who
439
188
Common to
Both
88
What (Action)
314
333
142
505
What (Object)
827
605
264
1168
Where
When
224
82
238
67
93
42
369
107
How
230
162
56
336
Why
Multiples
% Multiples
29
470
28%
16
390
33%
6
167
32%
39
693
30%
Total
1654
1198
516
2336
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Total
539
J3CIEDM and C2LG – “Actions”
Reference
Enumerated "What"
Actions
JC3IEDM
445
C2LG (All)
152
C2LG (Ground
Operations)
100
C2LG (Air Operations)
27
C2LG Crisis Relief
39
• Both quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals high degree of congruence
of JP 1-02 and FM 1-02 terms with action expressions found in JC3IEDM and
C2LG and…
• Also many of the same issues with respect to
– Normalization
– Complexity
– Indirect Referencing
9
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Example: Normalization
• Host Nation Support: (DOD) Civil and/or military assistance rendered by a
nation to foreign forces within its territory during peacetime, crises or
emergencies, or war based on agreements mutually concluded between nations.
See also civil-military operations. See FM 3-07. (FM 1-02)
• Subversive Political Action: "A planned series of activities designed to
accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing
individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of
another government.“ (JP1-02)
• JC3IEDM action-event-category-code
“The specific value that represents the general class or nature of activity prescribed
by an ACTION-EVENT”
– Providing host nation support (See above definition)
– Political execution: A putting to death of a person or group of persons for political
reasons. (No directly equivalent term in either JP 1-02 or FM 1-02)
10
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Example: Complexity
 Wave: a formation of forces, including ships, craft, amphibious vehicles
or aircraft, required to beach or land about the same time. Waves can be
classified by function: scheduled, on-call, or non-scheduled. Waves can
also be classified by type of craft, e.g., assault, helicopter, or landing
craft. (JP1-02)
 JC3IEDM: No direct reference to a wave (e.g. as a task-formation-typecategory-code attribute of the TASK-FORMATION-TYPE entity.
– However the JC3IEDM ACTION-TASK: action-task-timing-hourcode attribute contains this definition for the “H” value (as in H-Hour):
 (2) In amphibious operations, the time at which the first waterborne
wave of an amphibious assault lands on a beach.
11
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Example: Indirect Reference
 (1) Orbit Point: A geographically or electronically defined location used in
stationing aircraft in flight during tactical operations when a predetermined
pattern is not established. See also holding point." (JP1—02)
– JC3IEDM Representation: CONTROL-FEATURE-TYPE: control-featuretype-category-code: orbit point
 (2) Patrol Base: The point of origin of a patrol where all equipment not
required for the patrol is left. All supplies necessary for resupplying the
patrol and additional medical supplies and assistance are staged at this
location. (FM 7-7) (FM 1-02 )
 JC3IEDM Representation:
– TASK-FORMATION-TYPE: task-formation-type-category-code: patrol
 Definition: A TASK-FORMATION-TYPE that is a detachment of ground, sea, or air forces sent
out for the purpose of gathering information or carrying out a destructive, harassing, moppingup, or security mission.
– FACILITY-TYPE facility-type-category-code: Military base/facility
– Definition: A facility that is used as a military base.
12
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Uniform Joint Task List:
Suggested Action Verbs
Strategic
National
Advise
Advocate
Strategic
Theater
Conduct
Control
Coordinate
Design
Direct
Conduct
Control
Coordinate
Develop
Direct
Harmonize
Influence
Monitor
Organize
Propose
Plan
Manage
Organize
Plan
Provide
Support
Synchronize Synchronize
13
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Operational
Tactical
Arrange
Accomplish
Acquire
Carry-out
Conduct
Conduct
Determine
Develop
Design
Employ
Incorporate
Integrate
Plan
Provide
Support
Employ
Execute
Operate
Perform
Plan
Comparison of Task
Nomenclature (Attack)
Task ID
NTA 1.5.3
TA 1.2.3
ART 7.1.2
ART 7.5.1
ART 7.5.15
14
Task Name
Conduct Attack (Navy)
Conduct Amphibious Assault Operations (Joint)
Conduct an Attack (Army)
Attack by Fire an Enemy Force or Position (Army)
Fix an Enemy Force (Army)
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Summary and Conclusion
 Military natural language continues to evolve at a rapid pace
– OOTW and COIN offer significant challenges
– Future operating environments are complex and highly
uncertain
 Both simulation standards (e.g. C-BML, MSDL) and C4I data
models (JC3IEDM) are pressed to keep up with this evolution
– Inadequacies in existing data models and standards impact both
simulation environments and C4I systems during exercise
initialization
 SISO Product Development Groups (e.g. C-BML, MSDL) should
consider:
– Acceleration of work schedules
– Tighter integration of data models
– Additional venues for collaboration
15
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Questions and Feedback
16
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability
Backup Slides
17
2011 Fall
Fall Simulation
Simulation
2010
Interoperability Workshop
Workshop
Interoperability