William C. Riggs
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723-6099
443-778-6267, 858- 678-0629 william.riggs@jhuapl.edu
Keywords:
MSDL, CBML, Operations Process, Operational Terms and Graphics
ABSTRACT : As part of the Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) Architecture Roadmap Implementation Common
Capabilities task, JHU/APL has been examining common data storage formats used to represent plans and scenarios. As part of this effort, the vocabulary used in the Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML), Joint
Consultation, Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) and the Command and
Control Lexical Grammar (C2LG) was examined in relation to over 4000 terms found in FM 1-02 Operational
Terms and Graphics and Joint Publication 1-02. Continuing efforts extend this analysis to include the semantics and grammar associated with the Universal Joint Task List. This paper provides a summary of the analysis conducted and identifies issues relating to the continued development and maturation of the Military Scenario
Definition Language (MSDL) and C-BML standards.
• Logistics
• Event results
As part of the LVC Architecture Roadmap
Implementation (LVCAR-I) Common Capabilities effort, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory (JHU/APL) is developing a set of products that “facilitate cross-architecture communication and collaboration, and reduce divergence and duplication among LVC user communities [1].” This effort is part of the LVC Architecture Roadmap Implementation
(LVCAR-I) Project, whose purpose is to “develop a future vision and supporting strategy for achieving significant interoperability improvements in LVC simulation environments [2].”
The LVC Common Capabilities effort includes the
Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF) subtask. The
CDSF Implementation Plan identified nine categories of data storage formats:
• 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)
Specific standards, data models, and formats were identified as relevant to these categories; in numerous cases, these standards overlapped more than one of the nine categories, particularly in the area of data formats and standards used to support initialization, as well as simulation-to-C4I system interfaces. [3]
While the FY10 follow-up to the implementation plan focused on the representation of man-made features, unit order of battle, logistics and event results, the
FY11 effort is also examining the characterization of plans and scenarios. An interim CDSF progress report, completed in February 2011, examined the initialization process for the JLCTCC Entity
Resolution Federation (ERF), in relation to logistics,
C4I, and force structure representation supported in the
Joint Command, Control, and Communications (C3)
Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) and emerging Coalition Battle Management Language (C-
MBL) standards [4]
More recent efforts have shifted the focus on the commonality of C-BML, JC3IEDM and the Military
Scenario Definition Language (MSDL). The purpose of this paper is to describe the relationship between syntax of C-BML, JC3IEDM, MSDL and its impact on
Modeling and Simulation, particularly as related to

plans and orders incorporated in the initialization process.
1.1
Related Efforts
Figure 1: Relationship of Selected Data Models to
C4I and Simulation Environments
Figure 1 depicts the relationships among the data models examined under the CDSF effort, including,
JC3IEDM, C-BML and MSDL. Efforts are ongoing within SIW to harmonize these standards and to demonstrate their applicability in a joint and combined operational environment. Among the significant activities exploring the integration of these standards to
C4I and simulation environments are the NATO
Modeling and Simulation Groups (MSG) MSG-048 and MSG-085.
1.1.1
US Army Initialization Study
In 2009, the US Army conducted a study of initialization processes for LVC simulations and C4I systems used in large scale collective training exercises. This study described the complexity of the
“as-is” process, and documented the current data flow utilized in the JLCTCC ERF. [5]
Among the recommendations of this study were the following:

Establish a formal mechanism to communicate and share previously compiled
LVC initialization data.

Stand up Communities of Interest (COIs) to develop consensus-based data standards to define the structure of various data products to establish the syntax and semantics required to share the data products.

Explore the design parameters and architectural choices for an Army-wide
Initialization Architecture in tune with the implementation of the Net Centric Data
Strategy (NCDS).
1.1.2
Military Scenario Definition Language
The MSDL Specification consists of a technical specification with business rules, a coding standard and an XML schema. The MSDL Product Approval
Package, completed on August 27, 2008, describes the use of MSDL as representing “an intermediate state or a link between the planning and execution for any number or type of military scenarios including training, analysis, and operations. It is independent of both the planning and execution systems.” [6]
These balloted standards are managed by the MSDL
Product Development Group (PDG) and are slated to be updated in response to user defined extensions and comments. The existing reference implementations of
MSDL contain representation of planning and scenario data beyond what the current standard supports, and users have expressed the desire to extend the standard to enable more robust representation of combined (e.g. amphibious) operations as well as logistics. [7]
1.1.3
Coalition Battle Management Language
C-BML has undergone a lengthy standards developments process The C-BML Product
Development Group (PDG) artifacts available through
SISO reflect a variety of implementation issues that impact the maturation of the C-BML standard. The initial C-BML Product Development Plan (PDP), drafted in September 2006 [8], describes the evolution of the C-BML standard in three phases:
• Phase I: Specify a sufficient data model to unambiguously define a set of military orders using JC3IEDM as a starting point, with extensions as necessary to be interpreted by C2,
M&S, and robotic systems.
• Phase II: Introduce a grammar (syntax, semantics, and vocabulary) as part of the information exchange, content, and structure specification.
• Phase III: Development of a battle management ontology to enable conceptual interoperability.
1.1.4
Joint Consultation, Command and Control
Information Exchange Data Model
(JC3IEDM)
The Joint Command, Control, and Communications
(C3) Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) has been developed to produce a corporate view of the data necessary to reflect the multinational military information exchange requirements for multiple echelons in joint/combined wartime and crisis response

operations (CRO). The data model is focused on information that supports:
• Situational awareness,
• Operational planning,
• Execution, and
• Reporting.
The scope of JC3IEDM includes data from various functional areas according to the requirements levied by the Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Since information exchange requirements (IERs) change over time, a flexible generic model is needed that can adapt over time to changing information needs and serve as a basis or hub for new systems. For these reasons, the data model was initially known as the
Generic Hub (GH) Data Model. [9] Both the MSDL and C-BML schemas utilize data elements derived from JC3IEDM. While the MSDL utilization of
JC3IEDM data elements is limited to concepts not originally included in MSDL, the Phase I C-BML trial use standard utilizes the JC3IEDM data model much more aggressively, making JC3IEDM effectively the backbone of the Phase I C-BML vocabulary.
1.1.5
Command and Control Lexical Grammar
(C2LG)
The C2LG is a restricted grammar for the command and control of military operations organizations
“through time and space to achieve a specified intent”.
[11] The C2LG specification provides a core set of rules and their underlying rationale, with examples of usage based on the MSG-048 scenario. In its current form, C2LG uses semantics drawn from the
JC3IEDMwith necessary extensions where needed to enable orders and reports to be represented. Unlike some proposed BML approaches, C2LG expressions are similar to mission statements found in an operations order, rather than the operationalization of plans described in JC3IEDM. While this may limit the applicability of the C2LG grammar to portions of the operations order format that are descriptive in nature
(e.g. Paragraph 1: Situation, which describes the known state of enemy and friendly forces, terrain and weather), extension of the C2LG “Report” syntax to cover these topics may be achievable.
The C2LG rationale describes its syntax as a “ context-free” grammar, based on previous work by
Kaplan and Bresnan – a “lexical-functional” grammar.
[12] It distinguishes between the “5 W’s” (Who, What,
Where, When, Why) as described in the Phase I C-
BML standard and modifies this framework in two significant ways:
• It adds a “Why” expression in order to enable the goal and intent of an order to be expressed
• It adds a modifier expression that represents \ specific implementing guidance found in an order (e.g. “How” statements).
The C2LG specification also makes a distinction between “What” expressions normally represented linguistically as verbs and the objects of such actions, expressed as the direct object of the sentence. It specifically calls out two classes of direct objects: organizations (which may be friendly, enemy or neutral forces) and inanimate objects (e.g. a building or facility) affected by the action to be
undertaken. [13]
The context in which the common representation of operational plans and orders evolves has the following drivers:

Changes in the Operations Process as the nature of contemporary war evolves, and C2 processes adapt to these changes.

Challenges intrinsic to the initialization of
C4I systems and simulation environments in support of military exercises.

Unique data representation requirements to support the differential needs of human and unmanned actors that utilize and execute plans and orders.
For both LVC simulation environments and digital C4I
Systems, the Operations Process described in FM 5-0 offers a substantial challenge. The addition of complex operations, stabilization operations, and operations other than war places greater stress on all information standards utilized to plan, prepare, execute and assess military operations. Military planning now incorporates
“design” processes as an adjunct to traditional command and staff assessments prior to and during military operations. The goal of design is not unlike systems engineering practices – to identify and solve the right problem, not just utilize available resources in the most efficient manner to accomplish a predefined objective. Implementation of such an open-ended approach to C2 methods and processes has broad implications for how training exercises are organized and conducted, and the implicit and explicit demands placed on the LVC simulation environments that support collective training at all levels. [14]
Synchronized initialization of the C4I representation with the simulation environment is a critical problem area for both C4I systems and LVC simulation

environments. In large scale training exercises, the initialization process has proven both complex and time-consuming. The number of echelons actively represented in LVC environments, which “can seldom exceed two echelons,” determines the breadth and depth of C4I System of Systems (SoS) representations.[15]
As Joint and Army digital battle command systems are evolving, there is increased emphasis on publish-andsubscribe services to initialize and update the Common
Operating Picture. The “Army Initialization Tools and
Processes Analysis Final Report” sponsored by the
Simulation to Command, Control, Communications,
Computers and Intelligence Interoperability (SIMCI) program provides an excellent summary with supporting detailed descriptions of the necessary processes to initialize over a dozen ABCS and complementary C4I devices in the context of a brigadelevel Combat Training Center (CTC) exercise. The challenge of maintaining consistency within the distributed COP across C4I system and C4I-simulation environment boundaries is emphasized in this report, as well as the preceding analyses it references. [16] [17]
One key aspect of the initialization puzzle is the synchronization of plans and orders as they are developed in the following forms:
A predefined scenario serves as the basis for the
Operations Process prior to the commencement of an exercise as well as during its execution. . This scenario should reflect the underlying scope of the unit missions being simulated (and may be based on real-world contingency plans), as well as provide the necessary tactical context for the essential collective and associated individual tasks to be trained during the exercise. There is a necessary tension between the simulation environment’s need for specific and executable tactical commands and the training audience’s need for flexibility and responsiveness from the simulation environment, particularly if and when the exercise takes an unanticipated turn – and takes the simulation environment with it.
Human-driven and human-defined plans and orders developed iteratively as the Operations Process unfolds just prior to the commencement of and during an exercise. What is noteworthy from a review of the
SIMCI initialization report is that significant elements of the Operations Process, including operations planning, design, and preparation functions may take place after the C4I system has been initialized but perhaps before the initialization of the simulation environment has been completed. In such cases, an iterative update of the COP within the C4I system and a successive elaboration of tactical instructions take place, particularly within the constructive portion of the simulation environment.
Computer generated force (CGF) instructions and behaviors that enable the exercise players and controllers to execute the plans and orders as they emerge and are represented by the C4I SoS. While there is some limited automation of CGF behaviors derived from plans and orders represented within
MSDL, the amount of effort necessary to import these plans and prepare them for execution varies greatly, in large part due to the limited ability of CGF tools to ingest those orders without significant manual intervention and in many cases, significant loss of data during interchange from C4I to simulation-specific formats.
Once initialization has taken place, the relationship between the C4I systems and the simulation environment tends to shift toward stimulation of C4I systems with reports derived from simulated ground truth. While CGF systems do have the capability to automatically publish position and status reports directly into the C4I system, a more common practice is to rely upon manual input by role players who have access to either simulated ground truth or filtered situational awareness (SA) data derived from simulated ground truth to inject digitized reports into the C4I system. In a few cases, such as the simulation Blue SA capabilities in Blue Force Tracker, the C4I system is stimulated by converting entity state information published by the simulation environment into the format required by the C4I “client” systems. Generally speaking, automated report generation by CGF systems does not exhibit adequate correspondence to human reporting behavior. Few CGF systems are capable of data fusion and integration at levels two through four
(i.e. “Situation Refinement” through “Threat
Refinement” through “Process Refinement”).
Consequently, C4I reporting inputs at these levels are generally mediated through human cognitive functions, and manually entered into the respective C4I devices.
The gradual introduction of net-centric and unmanned systems is imposing an increased demand for direct and automatic simulation of these systems in the simulation environment. As training for these systems becomes more tightly integrated in collective training exercises, gaps between the C4I system of systems and the simulation environment will become more problematic.
Figure 2 depicts the methodology employed by the
JHU/APL team to isolate and analyze relevant operational terms found in Joint Publication 1-02
“Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and

Associated Terms” [18] and Field Manual 1-02,
“Operational Terms and Graphics”. [19] The terms derived from these sources were extracted, compared and correlated in an Excel spreadsheet. Each candidate term was evaluated for relevance to operational and tactical plans and orders. Purely administrative and technical terms were excluded, since such terms are not utilized in an operational context. Likewise, terms describing strategic and tactical concepts, complex warfighting functions, or non-military activities were excluded, unless relevant to the command and control of complex operations or Operations Other Than War.
About half of all terms found in the source documents were found to be relevant to operational plans and orders. Relevant terms were further scrutinized to determine what concepts they represented according to the following modified criteria derived from C-BML and C2LG:
• “Who” concepts that characterize permanent and temporary organizations that can be subject to orders and are responsible for their execution. It should be noted here that a substantial number of terms within this category reflected not only the identity and attributes of an organization, but organizational roles defined in joint and service doctrine.
• “What” concepts that represent orderable actions. Grammatically, these actions are characterized either by action verbs or nouns that represent unique and unambiguous actions when combined with action verbs.
• A second class of “What” concepts represented the objects of ordered actions and the state changes resulting from the effects of such actions. This category more or less corresponds to “Affected” forms described in the C2LG specification. [20]
• “Where” concepts are spatially referenced and may be defined in terms of spatial reference model, or graphic symbol whose primitives are spatially referenced. While some of these concepts represent absolute positions and vectors, others are relative to some other spatially referenced object.
• “When” concepts are temporally referenced, or represent events that have a temporal reference (e.g. “Before Morning Nautical
Twilight”).
• “How” concepts represent implementation instructions associated with one or more actions. While these concepts may express complex sets of actions and behaviors, they do roughly correspond to the C2LG “Modifier” expression. [21]
• “Why” concepts, when available, represent the rationale for ordered actions. These expressions may or may not be sufficient to establish “intent” as understood in the
Operations Process or emerging C-BML standards.
Concurrent with this analysis, the JHU/APL team examined the relationship between actions as represented in the JC3IEDM data model and the C2LG specification. The C2LG tasking verbs were crosswalked to JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations and specific gaps and inconsistencies identified. This analysis will continue, as MSDL expressions are examined and potential impacts on the
C-BML standard are identified.
The primary benefits of this methodology were to measure the normalization of terms used in the data models described above against equivalent natural language representations. In so doing, the JHU/APL team was able to assess the coverage of key concepts expressed in plans and orders, as expressed in these data models.

Source Concepts
JP
1-02
FM
1-02
JC3IEDM
UJTL
AU TL
MCTL
C2LG
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
Conceptual Analysis and Fusion
Product
Recommendations
MSDL
 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
1
 Both are used as part of M&S initialization
CBML
Figure 2: Spreadsheet Analysis and Fusion of Operational Terms
This section describes the emerging insights achieved by examining the categorization of operational terms found in JP 1-02 and FM 1-02 in terms of the extended
“5W plus How” categories described in the previous sections. In numerous cases, the official term overlapped into multiple categories, and was counted as such. The syntactic and semantic implications of these overlapping categorizations are also summarized in this section.
Source
JP 1-02
Concepts
3508
Relevant
Concepts
1654
%Relevant
47%
FM 1-02
Common to
JP 1-02 and
FM 1-02
Total
2002
818
4692
1198
516
2336
60%
63%
50%
Table 1: Operation Terms – Sources and
Distribution
Table 1 shows the overall frequency of operationally relevant terms that could be utilized in plans and orders against the overall sample size. As shown above, overlap between these two documents was minimal – at 17%, this intersection reflects a preponderance of ground and air force terminology at the tactical and operational levels of war: such terminology is generally more relevant to plans and orders, such as operations orders (OPORD) and air tasking orders (ATO). While
JP 1-02 has a strong representation of ground tactical terms, it is focused much more broadly than its Army and Marine Corps counterpart. Special operations as well as amphibious and maritime operations are much more strongly represented in JP 1-02, which strongly focuses on the joint and combined dimension of military operations.
Table 2 breaks down the relevant operational terms according to the “5W plus How” categorization described above. Roughly a third of the terms examined were matched against multiple categories.
This reflects the following characteristics of these natural language expressions:
•
Lack of Normalization. From a data modeling perspective, the terms as found in these documents lack normalization, existing at varying degrees of decomposition. This might well be expected with a sample data set covering both tactical and operational levels of war, as well as complex and special operations. The results in Table 2 imply that the “5W plus How” framework is not fine-grained enough to normalize these terms – but what it also implies is that

the terms themselves as used in natural speech are not consistent.
• Complexity. The terms themselves can have complex meanings, which are readily apparent to subject matter experts familiar with their use, but perhaps not explicitly stated in the terms’ definition(s) themselves. Leaving aside the instances of semantic collision associated with homonyms, which were occasionally found in both the JP 1-02 and FM 1-02 data sets, the definitions themselves often contain logical structure which would require significant decomposition in any data modeling effort. Example, the JP 1-02 definition of a “wave” reads as follows: “ 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.
” [22] The definition itself suggests set of task and command structures and temporal controls that would require the representation of a
“wave” as a set of interrelated data elements and/or complex data types. Because one of the purposes of military terminology is to convey complex concepts as briefly and succinctly as possible, this is a recurring issue.
• Indirect Referencing. Indirect referencing represents the other side of the brevity coin where military terminology is concerned. While existing C4I and simulation data models focus largely on the encoding of natural language expressions and associated graphics, the language of operational plans and orders often uses intermediate symbols to represent highly complex data that is assembled to support the
Operations Process. A common instance of this phenomenon is found in the habitual use of graphic control measures linked to geospatial location references: point, linear and areal “features” to trigger an action. Although there are many, many instances of such terms in both JP 1-02 and FM 1-02, two examples may illustrate this point.
(1) An “orbit point” is defined in JP1—02 as “ 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.
" [23]
(2) A “patrol base” is defined in FM 1-02 as “ 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)" [24]
As operational and tactical language goes, these two examples are relatively specific and unambiguous – and yet, they are not simple, stand-alone concepts.
Some other, external reference is necessary to describe what specific actions are to be taken when the aircraft reaches the orbit point and the patrol arrives at the patrol base.
With these considerations in mind, the data in Tables 2 and 3 suggests a high degree of congruence, if not identity between the terminology found in JP 1-02 and
FM 1-02 and the action expressions found in JC3IEDM and C2LG. Indeed, a qualitative inspection of the
JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations with respect to normalization and complexity shows that these expressions have many of the same issues as their counterpart natural language terms. For example, the
JC3IEDM enumerations include both “guard” (a tactical mission often assigned to cavalry units as part of a corps or division) and “constitute an advance guard” (applicable to a variety tactical echelons and situations during a movement to contact). In this way, the JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code reflects not merely simple tasking statements, but also complex roles that are assertive in nature (e.g. “Company A, 1-
69 Armor is the battalion task force advanced guard”_ and complex statements that link the unit’s assigned rule (a “Who” expression) with its mission (e.g.
“Company A, 1-69 Armor conducts a movement to contact as the battalion task force advanced guard”.
C2LG appears to work around this issue by only drawing simple tasking verbs from the JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations. It does not address the question of assertive statements made in conjunction with a plan or order at all, even though such statements are necessary to link a unit to a role that specifies or implies a set of tasks to be performed – and often performed differently – as part of that unit’s essential mission and tasks. This is a serious issue that must be addressed in the C-BML grammar and any derivation of MSDL that attempts to capture intentional statements made as part of the order or plan.

Classification JP 1-02 FM 1-02
Common to Both
439 188 88 Who
What
(Action)
What
(Object)
Where
When
314
827
224
82
333
605
238
67
142
264
93
42
How 230 162 56
Total
539
505
1168
369
107
336
Why
Multiples
% Multiples
29
470
28%
16
390
33%
6
167
32%
39
693
30%
Total 1654 1198 516 2336
Table 2: Operation Terms – Rough Order of
Magnitude Classification
There is a strong but not universal correlation between the JCIEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations and equivalent expressions found in JP 1-02 and FM 1-
02. The JHU/APL team analysis, for example, identifies unique 505 “What” “Action” expressions as compared to 445 JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations and 152 total C2LG tasking verbs that combine ground and air operations as well as operations other than war,
Reference
JC3IEDM
Enumerated "What"
Actions
445
C2LG (All)
C2lG (Ground Operations)
C2LG (Air Operations)
152
100
27
C2LG Crisis Relief 39
Table 3: J3CIEDM and C2LG – “Actions”
Another issue uncovered in conjunction with this analysis is the use of generic verb forms to describe missions and tasks. Natural military language is not always syntactically consistent; to some extent, this explains the coexistence of nouns and verbs in the
JC3IEDM action-task-activity-code enumerations themselves. While C2LG attempts to normalize these expressions by confining its expressions to imperative verb forms, this will inevitably burden any data transformation of these expressions to and from appropriate, understandable and clear natural language expressions in the military user’s native language. This is a highly ambitious goal and it may be useful to examine the task statements found in the Uniform Joint
Task List (UJTL), which also suffer from the same issues of consistent generalized expression of complex concepts. The rules for writing UJTL tasks are simple and straightforward. According to CJCSM 3500.04E,
UTJL tasks which are maintained separately for
“Strategic National” (SN), “Strategic Theater (ST),
“Operational’ (OP) and “Tactical” (TA) tasks, consist of a single verb and a single object expression per task.
The use of generic verbs is encouraged, according to the conventions laid out in Table 4 below (derived from the CJCSM 3500.04E original). Compound expressions such as “search and rescue” are considered exceptions and treated as such.
Strategic
National
Advise
Strategic
Theater
Operational
Arrange
Tactical
Accomplish
Advocate
Conduct
Control
Conduct
Control
Conduct
Determine
Coordinate Coordinate Develop
Design Develop Design
Direct Direct
Harmonize
Employ
Incorporate
Manage
Influence
Monitor
Integrate
Acquire
Carry-out
Conduct
Employ
Execute
Organize
Plan
Organize
Propose
Plan Plan
Provide
Support
Synchronize Synchronize
Provide
Support
Operate
Perform
Plan
Table 4: Uniform Joint Task List - Suggested
Action Verbs
The correlation of task expressions as found in the
UJTL, in the ABCs of military language as found in JP
1-02 and FM 1-02, and in the JC3IEDM and C2LG models (to say nothing – yet – of MSDL) is work that still lies in front of us. A cursory sampling of UJTL and service specific tasks betrays the same issues that the JHU/APL team found in the survey previously described. Table 5 provides some examples of these

expressions from the Army, Navy and Uniform Joint
Task lists:
Task ID
NTA 1.5.3
Task Name
Conduct Attack (Navy)
TA 1.2.3 Conduct Amphibious Assault
Operations (Joint)
Conduct an Attack (Army) ART 7.1.2
ART 7.5.1 Attack by Fire an Enemy Force or
Position (Army)
Fix an Enemy Force (Army) ART 7.5.15
Table 5: Comparison of Task Nomenclature
(Attack)
The point here is not the redundancy of service and joint tasks at the leaf node levels, but the slightly different manner of expression among tasks that appear either identical or at least are very similar in scope and purpose.
As C-BML continues to advance from Phase I into
Phase II and MSDL seeks to harmonize its own progress with this development, the issues exposed in this study effort will continue to arise in a way that challenges both the growth of a healthy and robust syntax as well as the extensibility of the expressions supported. The onset of “Design” as an accepted principle within the military Operations Process will in all likelihood accelerate the rate of change in natural language expressions employed by the American warfighter and his partners. An accelerated rate of mutation in standard operational terms is evidenced by the monthly revision of JP 1-02. For both C-BML and
MSDL to maintain relevance to the operational warfighter and the LVC simulations used by the warfighter, a more aggressive and pragmatic standards development process is needed. Reference implementations are a necessary but not sufficient approach to maturing and implementing these standards. Accelerating the development of these standards t is needed both to encourage identification and resolution of problems and their solutions, but also to gain broader support within the communities enabled by M&S, who have yet to consider implementing these standards in programs of record.
Funded efforts that currently seek to collaborate to share data and emerging results, to support each others’ progress and to adopt lessons learned should be incentivized to do so. Both the C-BML and MSDL
PDGs should consider how to facilitate this according to their processes and plans, and if possible, generate additional venues for synchronous and asynchronous technical exchange.
[1] Morse, Katherine L., Brunton, Ryan, Lutz, Robert, and Riggs, William, “LVC Common Capabilities”,
Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training,
Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC),
December 2010.
[2] Henninger, Amy E., et al. Live Virtual
Constructive (LVC) Architecture Roadmap (AR),
USD (AT&L)/DDR&E/P&P/M&S CO, 2008, p.17.
[3] Live-Virtual-Constructive Architecture Roadmap
Implementation, Common Capabilities - Common
Data Storage Formats Implementation Plan,
NSAD-R-2010-043, JHU/APL Technical Report,
May 2010, Appendix D
[4] Live-Virtual-Constructive Architecture Roadmap
Implementation, Common Capabilities – Common
Data Storage Formats Progress Report. February
2011.
[5] Henninger, Amy E., “Army Initialization Tools and Processes Analysis Final Report”, Institute for
Defense Analyses, February 2009
[6] Witmann, Robert, “Military Scenario Definition and Battle Management Language”, 2008 OneSAF
Users Conference, April 10, 2008
[7] Witmann, Robert, “Military Scenario Definition
Language (MSDL) Summary”, dated April 7, 2011
[8] C-BML Product Development Group. (2006).
Product Development Plan. SISO.
[9] MIP Data Modeling Working Group. (2009).
Overview of the Joint C3 Information Exchange
Data Model, with Supplement (JC3IEDM
Overview).
[10] Coalition Battle Management Language Drafting
Group. (2008). Phase 1 Specification for: Coalition
Battle Management Language (C-BML). SISO.
[11] Schade, Ulrich, et al, “Command and Control
Lexical Grammar Specification” Technischer
Bericht ITF/2010/02, Fraunhofer-Institut fuer
Kommunikation, Informationsverabeitung und
Ergonomie FKIE, July 2010, page 2
[12] Kaplan, R, And Bresnan, J, “Lexical-Functional
Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical
Representation” in Bresnan, J. (Ed.) “The Mental
Representation of Grammatical Relations” MIT
Press (1982)

[13] Schade (2010), pp 5-7, 11-12
[14] Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 5-0,
“The Operations Process”, March 2010, pp 2-2 through 3-13.
[15] Henninger, A. E. (2009). Army Initialization Tools and Processes Analysis Final Report, Appendix F,
JLCCTC ERF Survey Responses. Alexandria, VA:
Institute for Defense Analyses.
[16] Sprinkle, R., & Black, C. (2006). “Joint BC and
Simulation Systems Initialization Process.” 2006
Fall SIW. SISO.
[17] Carlton, B., & Scrudder, R. (2003). An Integrated
Solution to C4I and Simulation Initialization.
I/ITSEC.
[18] Department of Defense, “Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms”, 8
November 2010 (as amended 15 May 2011)
[19] Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 1-02
(FM 101-5-01)/MCRP 5-12A, “Operational Terms and Graphics”, 21 September 2004 (with Change
1, 2 February 2010)
[20] Schade (2010), p.12
[21] Schade (2010), pp. 10, 18-19
[22] JP 1-02 (2011), p. 397
[23] JP 1-02, p 274
[24] FM 1-02, p 1-144
[25] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CJCSM
3500.04E, “Universal Joint Task Manual, 25
August 2008
[26] JP 1-02, pp ii
This work was performed in support of the LVCAR-I task sponsored by the Department of Defense
Modeling and Simulation Steering Committee (M&S
SC) under High Level Task S-C-1 and managed by Dr.
Gary Allen of the Joint Training Integration and
Evaluation Center.
WILLIAM RIGGS is a member of the Senior
Professional Staff at the Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory. Mr. Riggs has 20 years professional experience as a project manager, technical lead and systems engineer in the development and integration of LVC architectures, terrain and target modeling, human behavior representation, and M&S standards development. Mr. Riggs’s military background includes 20 years active and reserve service in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of Major.
He holds an M.S.F.S from Georgetown University and a B.A in political science from Ohio State University and is continuing his professional studies in Technical
Management at the Johns Hopkins University Whiting
School of Engineering.