• Save
20100217 sopes overview for v3
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

20100217 sopes overview for v3

on

  • 871 views

Back grounder on the OMG Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services Standardization and the JC3IEDM.

Back grounder on the OMG Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services Standardization and the JC3IEDM.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
871
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
864
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 7

http://www.slideshare.net 4
http://www.techgig.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • MIP and ATCCIS provided a pristine environment in which partnering agencies can replicate data between operational nodes using a standardized interface (Data Exchange Mechanism [DEM]). Ongoing challenges: The advent of SOA, WEB Services and DDS have surpassed the capabilities of the DEM and many agencies want to adopt these technologies through COTS implementations The current implementation do not provide adequate support for Information protection and security The current implementation do not provide adequate support for dynamic CoI setup and teardown Addressing virtualized cross domain solutions Addressing data aggregation, transformation and marshalling challenges Addressing the need of National requirements to stage information into operational domain and he MIP environment is not in the mandate of the MIP community Addressing the need to develop information artifacts that enable TRA and C&A processes so implementations can be certified Addressing the need to support interagency (OGDs, PVOs, NGOs, Non-MIP Nations, … other levels of government) Addressing the need to support operations other than military Addressing the challenges with the military perspective JC3IEDM is a great start – but not the end of the story. The Emergency, Crisis and Major Event communities need to be supported such that they can adopted the JC3IEDM. For this we need to promote the development of COTS products and Open-source applications that integrate the JC3IEDM. We need to support organizations that do not have the development budget and resources of the Military We also need to remove the military and Army stigma of the JC3IEDM.
  • Long dedicated effort of the OMG and the US delegation to MIP. IEF is handicapped by the lack of targeted resources and a focussed set of requirements from the user community.
  • Long dedicated effort of the OMG and the US delegation to MIP. IEF is handicapped by the lack of targeted resources and a focussed set of requirements from the user community.
  • Information Interoperability comprises functions, services and technologies: That enable the exchange of meaningful information within and between organizations (heterogeneous Information Systems) in a manner that aid decision makers That improve the quality of shared information: Accuracy: semantics to accurately convey the perceived situation. Relevance: information tailored to specific requirements of the mission, role, task or situation at hand. Timeliness: information flow required to support key processes, including decision making. Usability: information presented in a common, easily understood format. Completeness: information that provides all necessary (or available) information needed to make decisions. Brevity: information tailored to the level-of-detail required to make decisions and reduces data overload. Trustworthiness: information quality and content can be trusted by stakeholders, decision makers and users. Protected: Information is protected from inadvertent or Malicious Release   That enforce information sharing policy: Need to share Need to Protect (Sensitivity, classification, privacy, etc …) Provide auditability back to enterprise and community information architectures Document business rules governing the aggregation, marshalling, filtering, guarding, Implement community standards
  • Seeking an AF and technology agnostic process for defining information exchange agreements and communities of interest. Challenges: The need to architect information exchange agreements is foreign to the IM community (see TOGAF, DODAF, MODAF, Zachman, …) Community focus on the XML and XSDs as the basis for interoperability (another partial solution  brittle, rigid and costly) – no different than ADATP-3, OTHgold, USMTF, … The separation of information protection and information security issues is foreign to the IM community Little or not support for information sensitivity, privacy and classification issues Little or no support for data aggregation challenges Little community understanding of the IM and AF issues related to interoperability
  • SOPES started with some basic Architectural concepts that were used to identify key areas of standardization. Data patterns and Architectural Views for specifying the patterns (core concepts to be integrated into UPDM 2.0 and DODAF 2.x) ASMG identified the shortfalls (information staging and information protection) in interoperability strategies security as early as 1999 Papers written for DND ATCCIS and MIP Re-issued for FELEX and EISE Approach demonstrated in 2000, 2003 (BOWMAN) and 2006 ASMG spearheaded these efforts for the at OMG, MIP (through the US DOD [OSD NII COI and Architecture]) and DOD ASMG is the prime contributor to these efforts Policy Model for the Operational Environment (Pending) Information Exchange Mechanism (Pending) Security Policy Domain Model (Pending) Security Views for Architecture (Pending) Tagging and Labelling Domain Model (Pending) Audit Services (Pending) Scenario Analysis Services / M&S Services (Pending) C&A, TRA and SOS Domain Model (Pending) C&A, TRA and SOS Services (Pending) Other Demonstrations and adoptions: 2000 Demonstration as Canadian Prototype to MIP based on model generated exchange policies 2002 Risk mitigation prototype developed for GD UK BOWMAN CIP – underpinning of BOWMAN Information Architecture 2006 Dynamically modifiable information exchange policies demonstrated at OMG 2007-2010 Modeling paradigm used for SOPES IEDM Specification 2009 Modeling paradigm adopted by UPDM – and DODAF 2 groups
  • We spent a lot of time and effort back filling missing capability: Information Views in architecture Information Protection Views in Architecture Concepts for semantics and data patterns Alignment between information models and data models other
  • We required a process
  • 1. Provide an inventory of current emergency management M&S, GIS and other data dissemination solutions, and the technologies deployed. This represents the “as-is” or status quo cluster-wide information exchange situation currently in place in the EM system.   2. Summarize via GAP analysis the EM cluster members’ technology infrastructure requirements, and information exchange / data dissemination needs, goals and objectives.   3. Identify all pertinent information required to aid in the design of a new (ideal) information exchange / data dissemination system matching the needs, goals and requirements of the EM cluster.   4. Draft a move forwards position – a road map – demonstrating conformance to an Open standards, web-based and GIS-enabled secure emergency management / incidence response System of Systems.   5. Write a “Charter” for the Mandate for EM Interoperability / information exchange offerings, and; frame the Specification for an Emergency Management Common Interest Group (EM CIG) Charter Document, and solicit OMG’s support as the requisite standards body, to ensure there is a standards setting vehicle in place for enabling the vision and roadmap identified by EM stakeholders.
  • 1. Provide an inventory of current emergency management M&S, GIS and other data dissemination solutions, and the technologies deployed. This represents the “as-is” or status quo cluster-wide information exchange situation currently in place in the EM system.   2. Summarize via GAP analysis the EM cluster members’ technology infrastructure requirements, and information exchange / data dissemination needs, goals and objectives.   3. Identify all pertinent information required to aid in the design of a new (ideal) information exchange / data dissemination system matching the needs, goals and requirements of the EM cluster.   4. Draft a move forwards position – a road map – demonstrating conformance to an Open standards, web-based and GIS-enabled secure emergency management / incidence response System of Systems.   5. Write a “Charter” for the Mandate for EM Interoperability / information exchange offerings, and; frame the Specification for an Emergency Management Common Interest Group (EM CIG) Charter Document, and solicit OMG’s support as the requisite standards body, to ensure there is a standards setting vehicle in place for enabling the vision and roadmap identified by EM stakeholders.
  • International non-for-profit the develops open specifications for information system interoperability that are Reusable, interoperable and portable – focus on: Interoperable Metadata management. These standards are requested, submitted, adopted and maintained by the membership.
  • World Wide Consortium of over 500 members form industry, Academia and Government.
  • WE MAINTAIN RELATIONSHIPS WITH MANY OTHER STANDARDS BODYS.
  • WE MAINTAIN RELATIONSHIPS WITH MANY OTHER STANDARDS BODYS.
  • Recent Activities: Naval Combat Management Systems Alert Management Application Management SOPES: Information Exchange Data Model (Data Patterns for JC3IEDM 3.1c) UPDM version 1.0 (Version 2.0 RFP on the street.
  • Software Driven Applications Traditional Software development based on full defined specifications Rigid/Brittle Solutions Typically built of per-to-peer interfaces High Maintenance Costs Required detailed understanding of operational requirements (traditional top down) Not conducive to dynamic real-world environments Poor retention of corporate knowledge Model Driven Architecture Model Driven Specifications driving Code Generation Same as above Code generation can be as low a 20% for algorithm intensive environments Policy Driven Services Development of exchange policies that are enforced by middleware Improvement of code based solutions Typically hand coded Typically targeting unclassified data exchange (not semantic interoperability) Typically short initial benefits – difficult to maintain Poor retention of corporate knowledge Architecture Driven Policy Services Use architecture models to generate policies that enforced by middleware, requires New – few products New – Architecture concepts New ways of approaching development But has real-world exemplars – ERD  SQL/DDL  Database applications

20100217 sopes overview for v3 20100217 sopes overview for v3 Presentation Transcript

  • OMG/SOPES – Information Interoperability Strategy February 2010 Presented by: Mike Abramson President, Advanced Systems Management Group Co-chair OMG C4I Domain Task Force
  • Topics for the Presentation
    • Object Management Group
      • C4I Task Force
      • Emergency, Crisis and Major Event Management Special Interest Group
    • Advanced Systems Management Group
    • Challenges with Interoperability
    • SOPES / Information Exchange Framework
      • Approach
      • Standards
  • ASMG
    • Founded 1995
    • Common User Core lead for DND (1996-1999)
    • ATCCIS and MIP lead for DND (1998-2001)
    • BOWMAN/CIP – Contracted to specify and demonstrate a sustainable IM and Interoperability Strategy (2001-2004)
    • OMG - Co-chair C4I DTF
    • Lead: SOPES/IEF
    • FELEX - Lead - Information Architecture (2005-2008)
    • MSOC - Lead - System Architecture (2008-Present)
    • EISE – Lead - Information Architecture , Aggregation and Protection (2007-2009)
    • EMSIF - Lead – Framework Development 2009-2010
  • Interoperability (ATCCIS/MIP) JC3IEDM Data Exchange Mechanism Message Exchange Mechanism Other Government Departments (OGDs) Other Levels of Government Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) Non-MIP Nations Non-MIP CoIs Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs) Reach back to National Domain Staging information from one operational Domain to another in a secure and trusted Manner was considered and National Issue
  • ATCCIS Challenges (circa 1998)
    • Challenges
      • All Data Contract (no mechanism to selectively replicate data)
      • No information and security protocols
      • Small changes had major impact
    • DND/ASMG successfully test Block 2 Prototype March 1998/99
    • Defined a Security Architecture for MIP 2000
    • ASMG embarks on the development of a model (rule/metadata) driven solution
      • Demonstrated at MIP 2001
      • Demonstrated for GD UK July 2002 (BOWMAN/CIP)
  • SOPES History
    • 9/11 Triggered discussions within the C4I DTF
    • June 2002 - SOPES RFI
      • C2IEDM Offered and an Option by NC3A
    • June 2004 - SOPES RFPs
      • Information Exchange Data Model
      • Information Exchange Mechanism
      • Information Exchange Policy Management
    • June 2006 – IEF takes over elements of SOPES
      • Information Exchange Mechanism
      • Information Exchange Policy Management
    • January 2007 – US DOD CIO/NII sponsors JC3IEDM as SOPES IEDM
    • Expected Finalization of SOPES IEDM: June 2010
  • ASMG at OMG
    • Joined 2002 in response to the SOPES RFI
    • Co-Chair C4I Domain Task Force (2004)
      • Champion: SOPES
      • Participant: UPDM
      • Information Exchange Framework
      • Data Tagging and labelling
      • Information Assurance
    • Co-Chair Emergency, Crisis and Major Event Management (ECMEM) Special Interest Group
  • Information Interoperability (circa 2003) Organization ≈ Capability ≈ System ≈ Service Multiple Peer-to-Peer Gateways
  • The Operational Challenge
    • Rigid and brittle information systems; lacking information quality; and security
      • Growing requirement for dynamic and adaptive information systems
        • Adapt to the changing context of the operational environment with embedded security
        • Adapt to changing coalitions, interagency coalitions and Communities of Interest
        • Adapt to dynamic real-world events in near real-time
        • Provide event (new data) change global update
    • Poor Information Quality and Availability
      • Growing requirement for significant improvements in information quality
        • Accurate: information that conveys the true situation.
        • Relevant: information tailored to specific requirements of the mission, role, task or situation at hand.
        • Timely: information is provided in time to make decisions.
        • Useable: information presented in a common, easily understood format.
        • Complete: information that provides all necessary (or available) information needed to make decisions.
        • Brief: information tailored to the level-of-detail required to make decisions and reduces data overload.
        • Trusted: information quality and content can be trusted by stakeholders, decision makers and users.
        • Secure: Information is protected from inadvertent or malicious release to unauthorized participants.
    • Overly Complex IT environments
      • Collapse the number single domain networks into one virtual MLS domain
  • SOPES: Interoperability Target (Circa 2003)
    • Selective replication of information (data in context) based on:
      • Communities of Interest
      • Filters Semantics
      • Transactional Data Patterns
    • Documented and auditable (traceable) description of:
      • Data aggregation Rules
      • Data Marshalling Rules
      • Information Protection Rules
      • Data Transformation Rules (/patterns)
      • Dynamic and Static Domain Filters
      • Communities of Interest and Information Sharing Agreements
    • Architecture Driven (TOGAF, DODAF, UPDM (UML Class Diagrams))
    • Model Driven Rule Transformation
    • Policy (Rule) Enforcing Data Services
    • Dynamically Adaptable to Operational Changes
    • Middleware Agnostic
  • Elements of and Information Exchange Specification (Circa 2004) MIP JC3IEDM OMG SOPES IEDM MIP PDU, XSD NIEM XSDs C2 Core / UCore XSD CAP CP XSD OMG SOPES XSDs Examples Domain Artifacts Rearranging the Stovepipes Not Directly Supported by Architecture Frameworks
  • SOPES Conceptual Architecture (Design to Audit; circa 2003 ) Information Exchange Model: - Aggregation Rules - Marshalling Rules - Transformations - Dynamic and Fixed Filters - Semantic Guards Generation of Executable Rules Executable Version of Operational Information Exchange Rules Runtime Control over Information Sharing: - COI Configuration - Information Release Control - Policy/Rule Assignment - Policy Activation / Deactivation Policy / Rule Enforcement Services / Trusted Data Service Application Programme Interface (API) to the Data Service Storage of Architecture Models User Developed Operational Applications DEMONSTRATIONS: 2000 :MIP, 2002/03: BOWMAN CIP User Selected Infrastructure User Selected Infrastructure User Selected Infrastructure 2006: OMG User Developed Analysis Tools
  • One Step Forward – Two Steps Back
    • It took nearly 4 years to get sponsorship of the JC3IEDM from the MIP Community
    • Work completed with minimum resources
    • No architecture views to support the specification of:
      • Information sharing agreements and Communities of interest
      • Information Semantics and Data patterns
      • Data Transformation Rules
      • Information Protection (Privacy, Sensitivity, classification) rules
    • No Information Exchange Domain Model Standards
    • No tagging and labelling standards
    • Big learning curve for the communities involved in delivering interoperability strategies and solutions
      • Perennial search for the silver bullet
      • Interoperability is a business issue / not a technology issue
  • SOPES: Aligned To Architecture Constructs (Circa 2006)
    • Modeling practices align with DODAF 1.5 and 2.x
    • A few new stereotypes on UML Class Diagrams (Simple profile extension)
    • Used in an evolving standard (SOPES IEDM)
      • Reusable Data patterns for the JC3IEDM
      • Described in Annex 1 to the SOPES IEDM Specification (http://www.omg.org/spec/SOPES/)
  • SOPES: Aligned To Architecture Constructs (2009) SOPES AF VIEWS SOPES AF VIEWS SOPES AF VIEWS
  • SOPES: Process for Policy/Rule Management (Circa 2008)
    • Derived from operational models
    • Separation of operational rules from the enforcement applications
    • Update / extension of rules from controlled stores
    • Automated transformation of models into executable rules
    • Aligned to standards architecture, modelling, development, etc … best practices
    • Architecture / Metadata Driven
  • SOPES Information Exchange Data Model
    • SOPES targets the use of the JC3IEDM for:
      • National Joint Operations
      • Peacekeeping
      • Reconstruction Operations
      • Sustainment Operations
      • Homeland Defence and Security
      • Emergency, Crisis and Major Event Management
      • Extended joint interoperability
    • Deliver re-useable architecture products that facilitates the use and fielding of the JC3IEDM consistent with DODAF, MODAF, DNDAF and NAF
    • Promote the develop of products and services within off-the-shelf C4I products
  • Specification Outline
    • Section 1 : Scope
    • Section 2 : Conformance Criteria
    • Section 3 : Normative References
    • Section 4 : Additional Information
    • Section 5 : SOPES Overview
    • Section 6 : SOPES Background
    • Section 7 : Design Rationale
    • Section 8: Usage Scenarios
    • Section 9 : SOPES IEDM Details
    • Section 10 : Transactional Models
    • Section 11 : Exemplar Semantics
    • A: Modeling Profile Description
    • B: Wrapper Class Descriptions
    • C: Transactions and OCL
    • D: XML Schema Descriptions
    • E: JAVA PSM
    • F: Glossary
  • SOPES Specification
    • Statistics
    • 16 Transactional Packages
    • 184 Defined Transactions (Data Patterns)
    • 271 Wrappers and Corresponding JC3IEDM Entities
    • Transactional Packages
    • Action (45)
    • Capability (2)
    • Context (12)
    • ControlFeature (5)
    • Facility (21)
    • GeographicFeature (5)
    • Holding (2)
    • Location (22)
    • Materiel (8)
    • MeteorologicalFeature (2)
    • ObjectItem (12)
    • ObjectType (6)
    • Organisation (20)
    • Person (7)
    • Plans & Orders (13)
    • Report (2)
  • SOPES Packages (additional Packages are provided at the end of the presentation)
    • Action::
    • Action_Effect Action_Effect_Type
    • Action_Objective_Item_Marking Action_Objective_Item_Target_Personnel_Protection
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Aircraft
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Electronic_Warfare
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Maritime
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Reconnaissance
    • Action_Resource_Item
    • Action_Resource_Type
    • ActionEvent_CBRN
    • ActionEvent_ChemicalBiological
    • ActionEvent_Nuclear
    • ActionEvent_NuclearWeapon
    • ActionEvent_Radioactive
    • ActionEvent_Radiological
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Item
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Type
    • Action_Context Action_Context_Status
    • Action_Effect_Item
    • Action_Functional_Assoc Action_Location
    • Action_Objective Action_Objective_Item
    • Action_Objective_Task
    • Action_Objective_Type
    • Action_Reference_Assoc
    • Action_Required_Capability
    • Action_Resource
    • Action_Resource_Employment
    • Action_Temporal_Assoc
    • ActionEvent_Composite
    • ActionEvent_Detail
    • ActionEvent_Status
    • ActionTask_Composite
    • ActionTask_ROE ActionTask_Status
    • Candidate_Target_Detail
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Assoc
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Authorisation
    • Candidate_Target_List
    • Candidate_Target_List_Assoc
    • Candidate_Target_List_Authorisation
    • Request_Answer
  • Simple Diagrams Define the Data Patterns
    • Basic UML Class Diagrams are used for the entire process
    • Similar to other Information Modelling approaches
    • Details applied based on audience need
    • Supported by numerous tools costing
      • $0 – Open Source (OpenAmeos)
      • $200-300 (Enterprise Architect)
      • $1000-2000 (Artisan, No Magic)
      • $2000+ (Rational)
  • Risks / Benefits to the Approach
    • Risks / Mitigation
    • Risk: Pieces Missing
      • IEM and Policy Management Standards
      • COTS Information Exchange Service
      • AF Tools
    • Mitigation:
      • Standards effort simple waiting for sponsorship (interest is growing)
      • Prototypes of the core capability exist
      • SOPES Modeling targeted for DODAF 2.x and UPDM 2.0 (Tools will rapidly follow); Simple ULM diagrams in existing tools will suffice
    • Benefit
    • Builds on current stated directions (JC2IEDM)
    • Leverages legacy investments by the international community
    • Aligns the core pieces of a sustainable
    • At worst: DND effectively documents is Interoperability requirements
    • Breaks the perennial search for an all encompassing Silver Bullet
    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.“ “ Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein
  • Applying the SOPES Approach
    • Develop a prototype based on the SOPES concept (< 12 months)
    • Experiment with policy based services
      • To evolve information sharing agreements fro JOINT Operations
      • To evolve and maintain Joint CoIs
      • To evolve dynamic control over information sharing
    • Work with EISE to develop C&A and TRA processes for interoperable information systems
    • Work with like minded OGDs, Allies and Coalition Partners to develop the SOPES Approach and Operational Capability
    • Use OMG membership to push the development of the missing standards
    • Promote the Development of COTS solutions
  • Q&A
    • Michael Abramson
    • ASMG Ltd, President
    • SOPES Lead
    • Co-Chair OMG C4I Domain Task Force
    • [email_address]
      • Advanced Systems Management Group Ltd
      • 265 Carling Ave, Suite 630, Ottawa
      • 613-567-7097 x222
    • Improve shared situational awareness and collaborative planning capability in coalition and multi-agency operations;
    • Increase interoperability within and between organizations, systems and applications;
    • Facilitate the implementation and deployment of capability to meet the emerging requirements of stakeholders and users;
    • Enable the exploitation of community information assets;
    • Improve the quality of information Control the spiraling life-cycle costs of information systems and technology;
    • Improve the management of private, confidential and sensitive information; and
    • Increase flexibility, agility and adaptability in deployed information systems.
    SOPES Objectives
    • Open Architecture: Facilitating the integration of new features and capability while protecting legacy investments
    • Open Standards: Facilitating the alignment and integration of products, tools and technologies
      • Enterprise Architecture Frameworks
      • Realtime, SOA and Web Services
      • Policy based services and Intelligent agents
      • Ontology and semantics
      • X-domain Solutions
    • Open Source: Providing increased access to best practices, processes, specifications and technologies
    Key Elements of SOPES Initiative
  • Specification Outline
    • Section 1 : Scope
    • Section 2 : Conformance Criteria
    • Section 3 : Normative References
    • Section 4 : Additional Information
    • Section 5 : SOPES Overview
    • Section 6 : SOPES Background
    • Section 7 : Design Rationale
    • Section 8: Usage Scenarios
    • Section 9 : SOPES IEDM Details
    • Section 10 : Transactional Models
    • Section 11 : Exemplar Semantics
    • A: Modeling Profile Description
    • B: Wrapper Class Descriptions
    • C: Transactions and OCL
    • D: XML Schema Descriptions
    • E: JAVA PSM
    • F: Glossary
  • SOPES Specification
    • Statistics
    • 16 Transactional Packages
    • 184 Defined Transactions
    • 271 Wrappers and Corresponding JC3IEDM Entities
    • Transactional Packages
    • Action (45)
    • Capability (2)
    • Context (12)
    • ControlFeature (5)
    • Facility (21)
    • GeographicFeature (5)
    • Holding (2)
    • Location (22)
    • Materiel (8)
    • MeteorologicalFeature (2)
    • ObjectItem (12)
    • ObjectType (6)
    • Organisation (20)
    • Person (7)
    • Plans & Orders (13)
    • Report (2)
  • SOPES Packages
    • Action::
    • Action_Effect Action_Effect_Type
    • Action_Objective_Item_Marking Action_Objective_Item_Target_Personnel_Protection
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Aircraft
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Electronic_Warfare
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Maritime
    • Action_Resource_Employment_Reconnaissance
    • Action_Resource_Item
    • Action_Resource_Type
    • ActionEvent_CBRN
    • ActionEvent_ChemicalBiological
    • ActionEvent_Nuclear
    • ActionEvent_NuclearWeapon
    • ActionEvent_Radioactive
    • ActionEvent_Radiological
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Item
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Type
    • Action_Context Action_Context_Status
    • Action_Effect_Item
    • Action_Functional_Assoc Action_Location
    • Action_Objective Action_Objective_Item
    • Action_Objective_Task
    • Action_Objective_Type
    • Action_Reference_Assoc
    • Action_Required_Capability
    • Action_Resource
    • Action_Resource_Employment
    • Action_Temporal_Assoc
    • ActionEvent_Composite
    • ActionEvent_Detail
    • ActionEvent_Status
    • ActionTask_Composite
    • ActionTask_ROE ActionTask_Status
    • Candidate_Target_Detail
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Assoc
    • Candidate_Target_Detail_Authorisation
    • Candidate_Target_List
    • Candidate_Target_List_Assoc
    • Candidate_Target_List_Authorisation
    • Request_Answer
  • SOPES Packages
    • Capability::
    • Capability_Composite
    • Capability_Reference_Assoc
    • Context::
    • Context_Element_Reporting_Data_Item
    • Context_Assessment
    • Context_Context_Assoc_Status
    • Context_Element
    • Context_Element_Status
    • Context_Object_Item_Assoc_Status
    • Context_Reporting_Data_Assoc
    • Context_Specification
    • Operational_Information_Group_Organisation_Assoc
    • Operational_Information_Group_Organisation_Assoc_Status
    • Operational_Information_Group_Plan_Order_Content
    • Reference_Assoc
    • ControlFeature::
    • ControlFeature_Item
    • ControlFeature_Item_Type
    • ControlFeature_Position
    • ControlFeature_Status
    • ControlFeature_Type
  • SOPES Packages
    • Facility::
    • Facility_Item Facility::Facility_Item_Type
    • Facility_Position Facility::Facility_Status
    • Facility_Type
    • Medical_Facility_Status_Composite
    • MFS_Casualty_Bed_Occupancy
    • MFS_Pending_Casualty_Evacuation
    • MFS_Pending_Surgery
    • MFSI_Casualty_Group
    • MFSI_Casualty_Type
    • MFSI_Evacuation Facility::Military_Obstacle
    • Minefield_Maritime_Casualty_Estimate
    • Minefield_Maritime_Sustained_Threat_Measure_Of_Effectiveness
    • Network_Facility_Capacity
    • Network_Facility_Frequency
    • Network_Facility_Item
    • Network_Facility_Service
    • Network_Facility_Service_Status
    • Runway_Approach_Direction_Assoc
    • GeographicFeature::
    • GeographicFeature_Item
    • GeographicFeature_Item_Type
    • GeographicFeature_Position
    • GeographicFeature_Status
    • GeographicFeature_Type
    • Holding::
    • Holding
    • Holding_Transfer
  • SOPES Packages
    • Location::
    • Cartesian_Point Location::Cone_Volume
    • Geographic_Point
    • Relative_Coordinate_System
    • Relative_Point Location::Sphere_Volume
    • Surface_Volume Location::Absolute_Point
    • CorridorArea_Surface Location::Ellipse_Surface
    • FanArea_Surface
    • Geometric_Volume_Item Location::Line_Item
    • LinePoint_Item Location::Location_Composite
    • OrbitArea_Surface Location::Point_Item
    • Point_Reference Location::PolyarcArea_Surface
    • PolygonArea_Surface Location::Surface_Item
    • TrackArea_Surface
    • Materiel::
    • Consumable_Materiel_Type
    • Equipment_Type Materiel::Materiel_Item
    • Materiel_Item_Type
    • Materiel_Position Materiel::Materiel_Status
    • Materiel_Type Materiel::Vessel_Type
    • MeteorologicalFeature::
    • MeteorologicalFeature_Position
    • MeteorologicalFeature_Item
    • ObjectItem::
    • Object_Item_Address
    • Object_Item_Affiliation
    • Object_Item_Assoc
    • Object_Item_Assoc_Status
    • Object_Item_Capability
    • Object_Item_Group_Account
    • Object_Item_Group_Account_Detail
    • Object_Item_Hostility_Status
    • Object_Item_Object_Type_Establishment
    • Object_Item_Reference_Assoc
    • Object_Item_Type
    • Object_Reference
  • SOPES Packages
    • ObjectType::
    • Object_Type
    • Object_Type_Establishment
    • Object_Type_Establishment_Detail
    • Object_Type_Affiliation
    • Object_Type_Capability_Norm
    • Object_Type_Reference_Assoc
    • Organisation::
    • Executive_Military_Organisation_Type
    • Government_Organisation_Type
    • Military_Post_Type
    • Task_Formation_Type
    • Unit_Type
    • Unit_Type_Recursive
    • Military_Organisation_Type
    • Organisation_Action_Assoc
    • Organisation_ActionTask_ROE
    • Organisation_Item
    • Organisation_Item_Type
    • Organisation_Materiel_Type_Assoc
    • Organisation_Plan_Order_Assoc
    • Organisation_Plan_Order_Assoc_Status
    • Organisation_Position
    • Organisation_Reference_Assoc
    • Organisation_Status
    • Organisation_Structure
    • Organisation_Structure_Detail
    • Organisation_Type
  • SOPES Packages
    • Person::
    • Person_Identification_Document
    • Person_Item
    • Person_Item_Type
    • Person_Language_Skill
    • Person_Position
    • Person_Status
    • Person_Type
    • Plans & Orders::
    • Plan_Order_Component_Header_Content
    • Order_Item
    • Order_Status
    • Plan_Item
    • Plan_Order_Assoc
    • Plan_Order_Component
    • Plan_Order_Component_Content
    • Plan_Order_Component_Content_Reference
    • Plan_Order_Component_Structure
    • Plan_Order_Distribution
    • Plan_Order_Distribution_Acknowledgement
    • Plan_Order_Header_Content
    • Plan_Status
    • Report::
    • Absolute_Reporting_Data
    • Relative_Reporting_Data
  • Demo Contract Topology PSC MOC NDHQ RCMP PublicSafety_SA Maritime_Alert Police_SA Police_SA Maritime_COP Maritime_COP Manual Activation
  • Pedigree of the OMG Interoperability Direction Interoperability by Common Products Interoperability by Common Data Schema & Middleware Specs Interoperability by Common Data Schema & Middleware Specs Interoperability by Shared Exchange Policies and Semantics
  • Who Is The OMG
    • Object Management Group (OMG), founded in 1989 with over 500 member companies, is the largest and longest standing not-for-profit, open-membership consortium which develops and maintains computer industry specifications.
    • Focussed of the development of standards for interoperability
    • Addressing standards for more than two dozen verticals including: C4I , ECMEM , Finance, Healthcare, E-Government, System and Software Assurance …
    • Defines standards with a worldwide, neutral, open, accessible and rapid development process
    • Commercial Products within 12-18 month of specification ratification
    • Better Known Specifications: UML, CORBA, DDS, UPDM, and More
    • Authored Several ISO Standards the PAS Process
    • MISSION : To produce and maintain computer industry specifications for interoperable that will support a full-lifecycle approach to enterprise integration which maximizes ROI.
    • Insight
    • Innovation
    • Interoperability
  • OMG is best known for these Specifications
      • All created and cared for by OMG’s Members!
    Operational Systems Technical The Latest: UML Profile for DODAF & MODAF (UPDM)
  • Worldwide Scope Adaptive Adobe Alcatel/Lucent ASMG AT&T BAE Systems BEA Systems Boeing Borland CA Cisco Credit Suisse Daimler-Chrysler Deere & Co. DND DOD EDS Fujitsu General Dynamics HP Hitachi IBM IDS Scheer IONA Interactive Objects Kaiser-Permanente Kennedy Carter Lockheed Martin Mentor Graphics Motorola SAP Siemens Sun Telefonica Thales Toshiba Unisys VHA Walt Disney NASA NIST Nokia Northrop Oracle Promia PrismTech Raytheon Rockwell
  • Recent Efforts at OMG Architecture Board         Intellectual Property Policy Subcommittee Object and Reference Model AB Subcommittee   Specification Management AB Subcommittee    Architecture Ecosystem ABSIG MDA Users ABSIG    Process Metamodel ABSIG    Service Oriented Architecture ABSIG    Sustainability AB SIG Domain Technology Committee : Business Modeling and Integration DTF   Consultation, Command, Control, Communications & Intelligence (C4I) DTF   Emergency, Crisis and Major Event Management Domain Special Interest Group (ECMEM DSIG) Finance DTF Government DTF   Healthcare DTF   Life Sciences Research DTF Manufacturing Technology and Industrial Systems DTF   Robotics DTF Software-Based Communications DTF   Space DTF   Mathematical Formalism SIG Regulatory Compliance DSIG   Super Distributed Objects DSIG   Systems Engineering DSIG    Platform Technology Committee : Analysis and Design PTF Architecture-Driven Modernization PTF Middleware and Related Services PTF [email_address] System Assurance PTF Agent PSIG Data Distribution Services PSIG Japan PSIG Korea PSIG Ontology PSIG Telecommunications PSIG Abstract Syntax Tree Metamodel (ASTM) FTF    Ada Language Mapping 1.3 RTF ADM Knowledge Discovery Metamodel (KDM) 1.2 RTF 2nd CWM 1.2 RTF    DDS Interoperability 2.1 RTF    3 rd Data Distribution Service RTF    MOF 2 Core RTF    MOF Model to Text 1.1 RTF    MOF QVT 1.1 RTF    OCL 2.1 RTF   Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) 1.1 RTF    UML 2.3 RTF    UML Profile for Systems Engineering (SysML) 1.2 RTF    UML Profile for Voice 1.1 RTF   XMI for MOF 2 (XMI 2.1) RTF   UPDM RTF 
  • Strategic and Liaison Relationships                     
  • OMG C4I DTF Mission
    • The C4I DTF is focused on systems that support crisis response, Search and Rescue (SAR), and military operations. Such systems are commonly known as C4I (Consultation, Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) systems and are here taken to include surveillance and reconnaissance together with sustainment disciplines (such as logistics, weather, air traffic control, etc.). 
    • The mission is to: 
    • Communicate the requirements of the C4I domain communities to the OMG and its various subgroups. 
    • Foster use of OMG adopted technologies in the C4I domain communities.
    • Develop open specifications and standards that enable interoperability in coalition and inter-agency operations. 
    • Standardize interfaces for interoperability among members of the C4I domain communities. 
    • Augment and extend standards to enable C4I domain interoperability. 
    • Encourage the development of products based on open standards relevant to C4I interoperability.
    • Develop relationships between OMG C4I DTF and other government and industry groups (e.g., MIP)
  • Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services (SOPES)
    • Interoperability within the Emergency, Crisis and Major Event Management environment is categorized by services and/or capabilities supporting:
      • A broad cross-section of crisis response organizations, including:
        • First Responders (e.g., Police, Fire Department and Emergency Medical Personnel);
        • Government Agencies (Federal, Provincial/State, and Municipal);
        • Non-Government Organizations (NGOs);
        • Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs);
        • Para-military and security agencies; and
        • Military (Land, maritime, air, and space).
      • A shared representative operational picture across heterogeneous organizations, agencies and communities of interest
      • Situational Awareness, Collaborative Planning and Decision Support
  • Who is ASMG
    • Started 1995 as a consortium of consultants
      • Mike Abramson, President
      • Jean-Claude Lecomte, VP Operations
    • Staffing: 4 Consultants, 2 Programmers
    • Incorporated in 1999
    • Business Focus:
        • Information Management
        • Information Assurance
        • Information Sharing and Interoperability
        • Regulatory Compliance for Information Privacy/Security
        • Crisis Response Management / Military Command and Control
    • DND Project Experience: MiliPAC, DELEX, TRUMP, CPF, FELEX, NSA< ATCCIS, MIP, ARMY
    • EISE, MSOC, IEM, other
    • Standards Efforts: SOPES, UPDM, IEF
  • Development / Acquisition Options
    • Software Driven Applications
      • Traditional Software development based on full defined specifications
    • Model Driven Architecture
      • Model Driven Specifications driving Code Generation
    • Policy Driven Services
      • Development of exchange policies that are enforced by middleware
    • Architecture Driven Policy Services
      • Use architecture models to generate policies that enforced by middleware
  • Traditional Development
  • 3-tier Architecture
  • SOPES Target
  • SOPES Goals