Horizontal integration of warfighter intelligence data

868 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
868
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Horizontal integration of warfighter intelligence data

  1. 1. Horizontal Integration of Warfighter Intelligence Data A Shared Semantic Resource for the Intelligence Community Barry Smith, University at Buffalo, NY, USA Tatiana Malyuta, New York City College of Technology, NY William S. Mandrick, Data Tactics Corp., VA, USA Chia Fu, Data Tactics Corp., VA, USAKesny Parent, Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, CERDEC, MD, USA Milan Patel, Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, CERDEC, MD, USA
  2. 2. Horizontal Integration of Intelligence 2
  3. 3. Horizontal Integration• “Horizontally integrating warfighter intelligence data … requires access (including discovery, search, retrieval, and display) to intelligence data among the warfighters and other producers and consumers via standardized services and architectures. These consumers include, but are not limited to, the combatant commands, Services, Defense agencies, and the Intelligence Community.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction J2 CJCSI 3340.02A 1 August 2011
  4. 4. Challenges to the horizontal integration of Intelligence Data• Quantity and variety – Need to do justice to radical heterogeneity in the representation of data and semantics Dynamic environments – Need agile support for retrieval, integration and enrichment of data• Emergence of new data resources – Need in agile, flexible, and incremental integration approach
  5. 5. Horizontal integration=def. multiple heterogeneous data resourcesbecome aligned in such a way that search andanalysis procedures can be applied to theircombined content as if they formed a singleresource
  6. 6. This 6
  7. 7. will not yield horizontal integration 7
  8. 8. Strategy• Strategy to avoid stovepipes requires a solution that is – Stable – Incrementally growing – Flexible in addressing new needs – Independent of source data syntax and semantics The answer: Semantic Enhancement (SE), a strategy of external (arm’s length) alignment
  9. 9. Distributed Common Ground System–Army (DCGS-A) Semantic Enhancement of the Dataspace on the Cloud Dr. Tatiana Malyuta New York City College of Technology of the City University of New York
  10. 10. Dataspace on the CloudSalmen, et al,. Integration of Intelligence Datathrough Semantic Enhancement, STIDS 2011• strategy for developing an SE suite of orthogonal reference ontology modulesSmith, et al. Ontology for the IntelligenceAnalyst, CrossTalk: The Journal of DefenseSoftware Engineering November/December2012,18-25.• Shows how SE approach provides immediate benefits to the intelligence analyst
  11. 11. Dataspace on the Cloud• Cloud (Bigtable-like) store of heterogeneous data and data semantics – Unified representation of structured and unstructured data – Without loss and or distortion of data or data semantics• Homogeneous standardized presentation of heterogeneous content via a suite of SE ontologiesUser SE ontologies Heterogeneous Contents
  12. 12. Dataspace on the Cloud• Cloud (Bigtable-like) store of heterogeneous data and data semantics – Unified representation of structured and unstructured data – Without loss and or distortion of data or data semantics• Homogeneous standardized presentation of heterogeneous content via a suite of SE ontologiesUser SE ontologiesIndex Heterogeneous Contents
  13. 13. Basis of the SE Approach• Focusing on the terms (labels, acronyms, codes) used in the source data.• Where multiple distinct terms {t1, …, tn} are used in separate data sources with one and the same meaning, they are associated with a single preferred label drawn from a standard set of such labels• All the separate data items associated with the {t1, … tn} thereby linked together through the corresponding preferred labels.• Preferred labels form basis for the ontologies we build SE ontology labels XYZ ABC Heterogeneous Contents KLM
  14. 14. SE Requirements to achieve Horizontal Integration• The ontologies must be linked together through logical definitions to form a single, non- redundant and consistently evolving integrated network• The ontologies must be capable of evolving in an agile fashion in response to new sorts of data and new analytical and warfighter needs  our focus here
  15. 15. Creating the SE Suite of Ontology Modules • Incremental distributed ontology development – based on Doctrine; – involves SMEs in label selection and definition • Ontology development rules and principles – A shared governance and change management process – A common ontology architecture incorporating a common, domain-neutral, upper-level ontology (BFO) • An ontology registry • A simple, repeatable process for ontology development • A process of intelligence data capture through ‘annotation’ or ‘tagging’ of source data artifacts • Feedback between ontology authors and users
  16. 16. Intelligence Ontology Suite Home Introduction PMESII-PT ASCOPE References Links Welcome to the I2WD Ontology Suite!I2WD Ontology Suite: A web server aimed to facilitate ontology visualization, query, and development for the IntelligenceCommunity. I2WD Ontology Suite provides a user-friendly web interface for displaying the details and hierarchy of a specificontology term. No. Ontology Prefix Ontology Full Name List of Terms 1 AO Agent Ontology 2 ARTO Artifact Ontology 3 BFO Basic Formal Ontology 4 EVO Event Ontology 5 GEO Geospatial Feature Ontology 6 IIAO Intelligence Information Artifact Ontology 7 LOCO Location Reference Ontology 16 8 TARGO Target Ontology
  17. 17. Ontology Development Principles• Reference ontologies – capture generic content and are designed for aggressive reuse in multiple different types of context – Single inheritance – Single reference ontology for each domain of interest• Application ontologies – created by combining local content with generic content taken from relevant reference ontologies
  18. 18. Illustration Reference Ontology Application Definitionsvehicle =def: an object used for artillery vehicle = def. vehicle designed fortransporting people or goods the transport of one or more artillery weapons tractor =def: a vehicle that is used for towing wheeled tractor = def. a tractor that has a wheeled platform crane =def: a vehicle that is used for lifting and moving heavy objects Russian wheeled tractor type T33 = def. a wheeled tractor of type T33vehicle platform=def: means of providing manufactured in Russiamobility to a vehicle Ukrainian wheeled tractor type T33 wheeled platform=def: a vehicle = def. a wheeled tractor of type T33 platform that provides mobility through manufactured in Ukraine the use of wheels tracked platform=def: a vehicle platform that provides mobility through the use of continuous tracks
  19. 19. Illustration Vehicle Black – reference ontologies Artillery Red – Tractor Vehicle application ontologiesWheeled ArtilleryTractor Tractor Wheeled Artillery Tractor
  20. 20. Role of Reference Ontologies• Normalized (compare Ontoclean) – Allows us to maintain a set of consistent ontologies – Eliminates redundancy• Modular – A set of plug-and-play ontology modules – Enables distributed development• Surveyable – Common principles used, common training and governance
  21. 21. Examples of Principles• All terms in all ontologies should be singular nouns• Same relations between terms should be reused in every ontology• Reference ontologies should be based on single inheritance• All definitions should be of the form an S = Def. a G which Ds where ‘G’ (for: species) is the parent term of S in the corresponding reference ontology
  22. 22. SE Architecture• The Upper Level Ontology (ULO) in the SE hierarchy must be maximally general (no overlap with domain ontologies)• The Mid-Level Ontologies (MLOs) introduce successively less general and more detailed representations of types which arise in successively narrower domains until we reach the Lowest Level Ontologies (LLOs).• The LLOs are maximally specific representation of the entities in a particular one-dimensional domain
  23. 23. Architecture Illustration
  24. 24. Intelligence Ontology Suite Home Introduction PMESII-PT ASCOPE References Links Welcome to the I2WD Ontology Suite!I2WD Ontology Suite: A web server aimed to facilitate ontology visualization, query, and development for the IntelligenceCommunity. I2WD Ontology Suite provides a user-friendly web interface for displaying the details and hierarchy of a specificontology term. No. Ontology Prefix Ontology Full Name List of Terms 1 AO Agent Ontology 2 ARTO Artifact Ontology 3 BFO Basic Formal Ontology 4 EVO Event Ontology 5 GEO Geospatial Feature Ontology 6 IIAO Intelligence Information Artifact Ontology 7 LOCO Location Reference Ontology 24 8 TARGO Target Ontology
  25. 25. top level Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) Ontology for Information Artifact Biomedical Spatial Ontologymid-level Ontology Investigations (BSPO) (IAO) (OBI) Anatomy Ontology Infectious (FMA*, CARO) Disease Environment Cellular Ontology Cell Ontology Component (IDO*) Ontology (EnvO) Ontology (CL) Phenotypic Biological domain (FMA*, GO*) Quality Process level Subcellular Anatomy Ontology (SAO) Ontology Ontology (GO*) (PaTO) Sequence Ontology (SO*) Molecular Function Protein Ontology (GO*) (PRO*) Extension Strategy + Modular Organization 25
  26. 26. Shared Semantic Resource• Growing collection of shared ontologies asserted and application• Pilot program to coordinate a small number of development communities including both DSC (internal) and external groups to produce their ontologies according to the best practice guidelines of the SE methodology
  27. 27. • Given the principles of building the SE (governance, distributed incremental development, common architecture) the next step is to create a semantic resource that can be shared by a larger community, and used for inter- and intra-integration on numerous systems Army Shared Semantic Resource Navy Dataspace Air Force Heterogeneous Contents
  28. 28. 28
  29. 29. M I L I TA R Y O P E R AT I O N S O N T O L O G Y S U I T E 29
  30. 30. top level Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) Ontology for Information Artifact Biomedical Spatial Ontologymid-level Ontology Investigations (BSPO) (IAO) (OBI) Anatomy Ontology Infectious (FMA*, CARO) Disease Environment Cellular Ontology Cell Ontology Component (IDO*) Ontology (EnvO) Ontology (CL) Phenotypic Biological domain (FMA*, GO*) Quality Process level Subcellular Anatomy Ontology (SAO) Ontology Ontology (GO*) (PaTO) Sequence Ontology (SO*) Molecular Function Protein Ontology (GO*) (PRO*) Extension Strategy + Modular Organization 30
  31. 31. BFO:continuant continuant independent dependent spatial continuant continuant regionportion of object generically specifically 0D-region site dependent dependent material boundary continuant continuant object 1D-region information realizable quality artifact entity fiat object 2D-region part function object 3D-region aggregate role disposition 31
  32. 32. BFO:occurrent occurrentprocessual spatiotemporal temporal entity region region scattered connected scattered connected process spatiotemporal spatiotemporal temporal temporal region region region region fiat process spatiotemporal temporal part instant instant process spatiotemporal temporal aggregate interval interval process boundary processual context 32
  33. 33. Conclusion
  34. 34. Acknowledgements

×