1
Coalition Interoperability Through Network Centric Standards Management Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My paper today is about a network centric solution for managing structured information standards. I will start by defining what I mean by Structured Information Standards, explain why these standards are important to the achievement of military interoperability and provide some examples. Having set the scene, I will go on to explain why current methods, used to manage these standards, are not working, before presenting a practical alternative for today s net-centric world. 2
Interoperability Our everyday world is full of information standards Commercial systems use Structured Information Internet protocols Banking systems Airline seat reservation systems Aircraft flight plan systems Healthcare patient record systems Meteorological reporting systems (WMO) Languages we speak have structure, syntax & semantics NATO has its own Structured Information standards Standards must be kept up-to-date & be more accessible Interoperability may be a term that is over-used. However, our every-day lives depend in many ways on interoperability; even the languages that we speak have syntax and semantics. Humans and computer systems need Structured Information in order to precisely describe information and to convey meaning. NATO has many, very important, Structured Information Standards which must be used if NATO systems and those in NATO countries are to operate effectively. Conversely, it is a waste of time trying to mandate these standards, if they are too difficult to use, out of date and ignored. Therefore, NATO Structured Information Standards must be keep up-to-date and become much more accessible, to users, than they are today. 3
Military Information Interoperability Military lives depend on accurate & clearly understandable information Military information interoperability is about Conveying facts Removing ambiguity Understanding the meaning & interpretation Automating reporting Situation awareness Multi-national & coalition military operations Military interoperability requires Structured Information Structured Information Exchange which need effective Structured Information Standards Management Military operations need orders, reports and returns to be clearly understood, so that situation awareness can be achieved, not only for our own forces, but across multinational and coalition deployments. In fact, military lives depend on being able to exchange accurate, unambiguous and understandable information. We must therefore use structured information. But the methods used to-day for developing, managing and publishing structured information standards are out of date and in danger of being ignored and therefore ineffective. 4
Military Structured Information Standards Information Exchange Requirements (IERs) Message Text Formats (MTF) NATO ADatP-3 (STANAG 5500) USMTF (MIL STD 6040) OTHT-Gold (US NCTSI) Structured Documents XML-MTF (and military use of vanilla XML) GIS Symbology US Symbology (MIL STD 2525) NATO Symbology (APP6) Tactical Data Links (TDLs) Link 1 (STANAG 5501) Link 11 (STANAG 5511 & TADIL A/B) Link 14 (STANAG 5514) Link 16 (STANAG 5516 & TADIL J) VMF (Variable Message Format) Examples of structured information standards include Message Text Formats, XML, GIS symbology, tactical data links and meta data for data bases, such as the MIP (Multilateral Interoperability Programme) C2IEDM data model. In fact, NATO s Message Text Format standard is about to undergo a transformation, with the ADatP-3 Change 4 publication early next year, and the next generation of the MIP data model, JC3IEDM, is in the process of being ratified for NATO use, as STANAG 5525; eight nations having ratified it so far, with 13 needed before it can be promulgated as an official standard. 5
MIP Technology Multilateral Interoperability Program (MIP) Standards Data Model (C2IEDM becoming JC3IEDM) Message Exchange Mechanism Data Exchange Mechanism Now the NATO Data Model (becoming a STANAG) Supported by 24 Countries + NATO & SHAPE Full Members Associate Members Many non-nato countries keen to join De facto international standard for situation awareness Providing Coalition Interoperability Specified by USA for COSMOS The MIP Data Model is, therefore, now, NATO s Data Model. Indeed, with MIP now supported by over 24 countries and many non-nato countries keen to join the MIP data model is increasingly becoming the international standard, for situation awareness and Coalition interoperability. This is yet another example of our dependency on structured information, syntax and structure. 6
What is the problem? Structured information standards are essential for interoperability between systems & coalition partners So what is the problem? Structured information standards are essential if we are to achieve interoperability between systems. So what is the problem? 7
Management of SI Standards Today SI = Structured Information 30-year old system which has not evolved Change management cycle is slow & expensive Cannot keep pace with requirements Lack of education & operational understanding Difficult or impossible for users to effect changes All too difficult and therefore standards are ignored Failure to fully automate systems Lack of actual interoperability facts (system coherence) Lack of Change Impact Analysis The methods used, today, for managing structured information standards, are 30 years old, out-of-date and no longer viable. The processes were established in the days when publications had to be printed in large volumes, managed by committees meeting two or three times a year and based on the concept of annual or bi-annual Baselines, containing entire catalogues of MTFs, symbols and data link definitions. The process is slow and cannot, therefore, keep pace with more rapidly changing operational requirements and especially Network Centric Warfare. There is a lack of education and understanding about the standards and Users have become frustrated, because they cannot promote changes or influence the development of the standards that they need, in order to meet their military business requirements. In effect, it all becomes too difficult and often standards are ignored. There is a failure to fully automate systems and, as a result, there is a lack of actual interoperability and therefore effective system coherence. 8
Traditional SI Standards Management SI = Structured Information Standards Organisation Agreed Publications Air Gap System A built in 2004 using ADatP-3 Baseline 11 National Procurement Agency System B built in 2005 using ADatP-3 Baseline 12 X System A and System B are not using the same NATO Baseline standard and therefore interoperability is NOT possible Standards organisations publish new baselines and simply expect everyone to change over as soon as they become available. This is not possible, and not practical, when systems go through funded upgrade cycles, that are not necessarily in step with the publication of standards. 9
Vision for the Future of Structured Information Standards Management However, we now have a vision for a more effective way of managing structured information standards, which I will now explain. 10
The Future for Structured Information Standards Management Net-Centric / web-based Configuration Management (CM) across all standards Maximum re-use & minimal change Manage changes at the elemental level On-line Change Proposals Live Updates to keep systems up-to-date The future for Structure Information Standards Management must be net-centric. We must start to think in terms of common terminology across all military standards and therefore in terms of configuration management across as many standards as possible. The object should be maximum re-use and minimum change. Changes must be managed down at the elemental level. For example, changes to a field with legal aircraft types could be agreed On-Line and published to users that need the new version. Only a few message types would be involved and changing a legal value would have little or no impact on the ability of systems to remain interoperable with different versions of the aircraft type field. Certainly, the users needing a new aircraft type, to be added to a legal value list for a specific field, would not have to wait two years for a new Baseline. 11
Structured Information Standards Management A 21 st Century Solution So let us now take a look at the vision for a structured information, standards management system, for the 21st century. 12
A Net-Centric Solution Overview Procurement agencies direct systems to utilise the on-line standards services Systems interrogate the live update service to synchronise with the latest revisions of dynamic elements, e.g. domain values, as soon as they are approved Standards Organisation At the heart of the Net-Centric environment - providing a range of on-line services accessible to all systems through the Net All systems operate the same latest agreed version of all elements within the standard and are therefore able to maintain interoperability The concept is to establish the standards organisations, on-line, at the very heart of the net-centric environment, to provide on-line standards services, that can be used by everyone and by all systems. Systems could be designed to synchronise with the latest revisions, of dynamic elements, as soon as they have been approved, using an on-line update service in much the same way as we update our Microsoft Windows installations and virus definitions. 13
The Effective SI Standards Community Essential: Providing joint standards managed through a formal Change Proposal (CP) service controlled by configuration management processes Structured Information Standards Management: Less formal, more force specific, Structured Information management; no need for community-wide agreement before changes can be made Wider SI Standards Community National Joint SI Standards Services (Character, Tactical and Symbology) Other SI Standards Bodies OASIS: W3C Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards Imagine: A Structured Information Standards service that can be used by any web enabled application developed to use SI standards registry services OASIS ebxml Registry Services Compliant Interfaces (Latest Revision Version 3 Draft 1 February 05) National standards centres could be linked to other national and international centres (for example NATO). A central service would enable all systems to access standards information, making use of dynamic interrogation and update services, offered to end users. Furthermore, systems could be automatically synchronised to the latest revision of a standard, as soon as it is approved, in minutes rather than years. Imagine a service that could be used, by any web-enabled application, designed to make use of the central registry. It would also provide links to other structured information standards bodies. For example, W3C already provides an electronic business XML registry. 14
Structure Information Standards Management The Reality The reality is, that we are already well on the way to providing this solution and modules of capability already exist. 15
Structured Information Standards Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators ISM Core Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators Tutorial Association Browser Content Browser Structured Information Services Reports Config Management process Admin Data Link Definer Repository XML Definer Symbology Definer Information Exchange Designers MTF Definer The solution is based around a Generic Core Framework that stores all elements of information and which enables links to be established between elements. The Core Framework knows nothing about individual standards but provides data storage and manipulation tools, supported by powerful configuration management and access control facilities. The entire data repository can be made available, on-line, to any user, authorised to have access. Knowledge of specific standards, in terms of their data relationships and structures, is provided by Definer cartridges, that are unique to each individual standard. An XML Definer already exists and we will be delivering an MTF Defined cartridge to NATO, by the end of this year, in time for them to develop, produce and publish, the new ADatP-3 Change 4 version of the MTF standard. 16
Generic Core Framework Configuration management of multiple standards Maintaining Configuration Items (CIs) Versions Associations Representing structure information & relationships Generic Core Framework CI Association The Core Framework models multiple standards, using the concept of Configuration Items and Dependencies, to represent the structured information and relationships. Examples of Configuration Items include, Messages, GIS Symbols, Data Links, XML and their individual elements and components. Different versions of Configuration Items can be created, stored in dependency tables and cross referenced using Version Associations. The concepts of Configuration Item and Dependency are purely internal to the system because, from a user s perspective, the system will only present terminology that is appropriate for the standard being managed. 17
Key Concepts Configuration Items (CIs) Manageable Items IERs, MTFs, Symbols, Data Items, Sites, Users etc. Anything that can be managed can be a CI MTF: Message, Set, Field Symbology: Symbol, Graphic, Component XML Schema elements Consumer: Site, System, Role Point of Contact (POC), Owner, Sponsor Change Proposal (CP) Collection (Baseline, Mission File etc.) Users Version Control Configuration Items have unique version numbers Associations Between CI versions A Site has a number of Systems A System uses a number of Messages A Message is composed of a number of Sets Configuration Items can represent anything for example, not just MTFs but also Information Exchange Requirements, users, sites, systems and even change proposals. Configuration Items can exist as different Versions and the relationships between different version, of Configuration Items, are linked by Associations. For example, a site may have a number of systems and one of the system might use a number of specific GIS symbols. By collecting information about all structured information in a single repository, we can easily determine which other systems are using the same GIS symbols. 18
Generic Core Framework New Generic Structure Current Message Text Format Schema Structure CI CI Message Set CI FFIRN/FUD CI FUD Where a CI type can be Message, Set, FFIRN/FUD, FFIRN, Symbol, Symbol Component, XML Simple Type This is a simple example the Generic Configuration Item structure is shown on the left and the way in which this would represent an ADatP-3 Message Text Format structure, is shown on the right. 19
CI Associations Many different kinds of association CI Type: Collection ADatP-3 Baseline 12 CI Type: Site HMS Devon contains uses CI Type: POC Cmdr J Cox has sponsor CI CI Type: Type: Message Message COLATDAMREP SARSIT implements CI CI Type: System RNCSS RNCSS Is composed of CI CI Type: Type: Set Set Date Time Group PERIOD Royal Navy Command support system Is composed of CI Type: Field USMTF 51 Is logically equivalent to CI Type: Field CI Date-Time Type: Field Turning this into a set of typical relationships. The Collateral Damage Report message type is a Configuration Item (and part of a NATO Baseline, which is also a Configuration Item); the message contains a Date Time set (a Configuration Item) which in turn contains a Date Time Field (which has an equivalent USMTF Field type) both Configuration Items. The Collateral Damage Report message has a sponsor, Commander Cox, who is himself a Configuration Item, and the message is used in the Royal Navy s Command Support System which is installed on HMS Devon both of which are also Configuration Items. 20
Structured Information Standards Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators ISM Core Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators Tutorial Association Browser Content Browser Structured Information Services Reports Config Management process Admin User Services Data Link Definer Repository Change Mgmt XML Definer Symbology Test Env. Symbology Definer Interoperability Analysis Information Exchange Designers MTF Definer Operational Users Additional tool-sets provide Interoperability Analysis, Change Management and a GIS Symbology Test Environment Package. 21
UK MOD Deliveries Interoperability Analysis and Change Management Maintaining a catalogue of platforms, systems & users that implement specific versions of standard elements Ascertaining interoperability between force elements Assessing impact of changes to information exchange standards Which CPs affect which system implementations Obtaining and collating impact assessments Supporting Force Package planning All three modules have already been delivered to the UK MOD and we are already providing access to a Network Centric test system, over the internet, for user evaluation. Interoperability Analysis will enable UK MOD to maintain a catalogue of platforms, systems and users, from which they will be able to ascertain the level of interoperability between systems, and to assess the impact of changes, should standards being used by these systems, be changed in the future. 22
Interoperability Analysis This is example of an Interoperability Analysis report covering three Sites. The symbols and colours indicate different levels of interoperability and the details can be viewed by selecting any of the symbols. 23
Structured Information Standards Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators ISM Core Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators Tutorial Structured Information Services Reports Association Browser Config Management process Content Browser Admin User Services Repository Searching Data Link Definer Repository Change Mgmt XML Definer Symbology Test Env. Symbology Definer Interoperability Analysis Information Exchange Designers MTF Definer Operational Users There is also a powerful content browser so that searches can be carried out across individual standards, such as ADatP-3 and APP6A, or across multiple standards, such as ADatP-3 and USMTF. 24
Browse NATO ADatP-3 Message Format Message text formats can be browsed and associations displayed. 25
Browse Mil Std 2525/APP 6 Symbology In this case using Mil Std 2525B. 26
Browse Mil Std 2525/APP 6 Symbology In this case using Mil Std 2525B. 27
Search Across Multiple Standards And we can search across multiple standards in this example, ADatP-3, USMTF and Mil Std 2525B. 28
Structured Information Standards Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators ISM Core Services Configuration Management Authorities, Sponsors, Service Co-ordinators Tutorial Association Browser Content Browser Structured Information Services Reports Config Management process Admin User Services Data Link Definer Repository Change Mgmt XML Definer Symbology Test Env. Symbology Definer Interoperability Analysis Information Exchange Designers MTF Definer Live Update Live Update Service Operational Users A Live Update Service would operate rather like Microsoft s Window update or like your virus definitions update. And once such a service is available to all users, online, it will be easy to add more services, such as on-line Computer-Based Training for individual standards. A final example is an additional Symbology Test Environment Package (STEP) that has been added for UK MOD to use with APP6A. 29
Symbology Test Environment Package Symbology Test Environment Package (STEP) Display new symbols on any selected background Compare with existing symbols Change the size, colour, frame (view in monochrome) Move symbols at varying speeds The STEP tool enables new symbols to be displayed on any selected background. GIS Symbols can be displayed with or without the frame, in colour or in monochrome. They can be made larger and smaller and can be made to move across the background at varying speeds. In this way, the designer of a new symbol can compare a new GIS symbol, with other existing symbols, to make sure that a new design is sufficiently unique, and easily recognisable, in a variety of viewing conditions. 30
Summary A new future for SI standards management will: Provide Network Centric/Network Enabled Capability for Structured Information Standards Management Support the transition of standards From current traditional off-line management-by-committee approach To a fully Net-Centric on-line management and dissemination process Manage the complex Change Proposal and Configuration Management issues required for maintaining all existing Joint, NATO & National Structured Information standards ADatP-3, USMTF, VMF, XML-MTF, TDL, GIS Symbology, meta data Supporting WWW XML Schema Specifications Accessibility on-line To summarise: The management of complex change proposal and configuration management issues, must be more effectively and spontaneously addressed, bringing structured information standards management into, to-day s, 21st century, Net-centric world. This new approach to structured information standards management will support the transition of standards from to-day s off-line, management-by-committee approach, to a fully network enabled, modern day, solution. It will be a complete culture change but this cannot be avoided, if effective use is to be made of NATO s structured information standards. 31
The Future has arrived for Structured Information Standards Management 32
33