Taking IDEAS Forward in the MOD All slides Crown Copyright Unless Otherwise Stated Taking IDEAS Forward in the MOD

MOD Ontology Based on IDEAS Used for information de-confliction No point in duplicating effort Provide interoperability with coalition partners Used for information de-confliction Provides a common semantic structure for stakeholders to map their terminology and data to …thus providing a means to accurately share information Provides the common dictionary for EA in MOD MODAF can be extended using the MOD Ontology Allows architects to work with their own terminology, but ensures that their terms are mapped onto other communities’ terms Enabler to SOA Possible uses specified in MOD SOA Handbook Key uses is as mitigator between services which use different data structures and terms / dictionaries

Application Rationalisation In developing an ontology such as IDEAS, patterns begin to emerge The surprise is how few patterns there are Many seemingly different business applications follow the same patterns Offers opportunity for new breed of data-driven application Trivial example (but you get the idea) Most organisations have purchasing systems They may also have sales systems In the case of a bank, they have currency exchange systems Actually, all these follow the same pattern of business Asset exchange – sometimes it’s cash, sometimes it’s goods Why do we need (at least) two systems for this ?

International Interoperability Architectural Interoperability Continue development of IDEAS for remaining DoDAF views Integrate other modelling tools and repositories Many of the MOD uses could be scaled-up to the extended coalition enterprise Using BORO, the various international codes and terms could be rationalised and mapped onto a common, mathematical precise ontology e.g. ADAT P3, JC3IEDM, OTH Gold, ATCISS, task lists, equipment taxonomies, etc. all de-conflicted

Intelligence Sharing IDEAS lends itself well to extension in this area: It is a four-dimensional ontology, therefore it handles complex temporal issues of change over time and identity over time (ship of Theseus problem) Complex timelines and chains of events can be modelled Extensional ontology – things are defined by their physical extent. This means there is no debate about whether two things are the same. If they occupy the same space at the same time, they’re the same thing. Sounds trivial, but it’s surprising how few models use this approach (hence there is always information conflict) IDEAS naming pattern allows multiple names to be assigned to a given entity – each name has a context (e.g. US names, UK names, etc.) Multiple classification Country X calls person Y a freedom fighter, country Z calls them a terrorist

A 4D Approach It’s unlikely that an individual has just one classification throughout life… Temporal “slices” of the individual can be named and classified born child UN classified by 1976 student Jeddah Uni civil engineer Inst. Civ Eng Terrorist Freedom Fighter Ayman al-Zawahiri Afghan Freedom Fighter CIA 10/03/57

How is IDEAS Different ? MOD’s IT history is littered with grand plans for data integration Failures due to insufficient stakeholder engagement – i.e. attempting to “foist” a data architecture on unwilling parties Failures due to inadequate analysis techniques – usually based on process modelling Failures due to inability to properly compare different sources of information Failures due to “MOD-Centric” approach ignoring coalition partners IDEAS is different because: It does not seek to impose a particular terminology, way of working, or data architecture on the users and stakeholders It brings in the opportunity for international coalition interoperability It fosters a “view from nowhere” approach – soft systems practitioners will be familiar with this idea It is strongly founded in set theory, allowing it to provide a more accurate representation of real-world

What Makes IDEAS Different ? The BORO Methodology - http://www.boroprogram.org/ Provides a precise, mathematical approach to comparing information Very easy to understand, and stakeholders readily commit to use the methodology Guaranteed to produce a correct representation, and is fully transparent at every stage – stakeholders are involved so buy-in is kept all the way through Set Theory Traditional data modelling is generally not founded in mathematic principles IDEAS uses formal set theoretic tools to accurately represent the structure of real-world concepts The Naming Pattern Once the analysis is complete, the terminology used by the stakeholders is mapped back onto the resulting model Enables stakeholders to continue working with their own terminology Allows seamless integration of legacy systems