1. 1 SAIC XMSF Update XMSF Workshop & MOVES Open House 4-5 August 2003 Katherine L. Morse, Ph.D., morsek@saic.com David L. Drake, drakedavid@saic.com Ryan Brunton, bruntonr@saic.com

2. 2 FY 03 Efforts Web-enabled RTI Overarching goal is to allow HLA-compliant distributed simulations to be both usable and available over a WAN (think Internet), with full web service functionality XMSF profiles Overarching goal is to provide a initial example/template for the XMSF Profiles, using the web-enabled RTI as the exemplar Composability Overarching goal is to investigate how web technologies can support model composability Participating in DMSO’s CMSE workshops

3. 3 Web-Enabled RTI Tasking: Participate in HLA federations using XMSF compliant Web Services for communication between federates in an existing federation HPAC and ITEM in DTRA’s WMDOA federation XMSF DCEE Viewer (XDV) in DCEE Circuit building exercise in HLA-ADL integrated instructional content Take initial steps to making existing federates callable as Web Services SOAP formatted RTI calls employing BEEP communication layer HLA specification compliant (DMSO RTI) Bi-directional calls allow Federate Ambassador call backs Encapsulation of non-reentrant RTI libraries Permits multiple instances of Web Service

4. 4 Sun PlatformWindows Platform HPAC RTI & Federate Ambassador Stubs RTI API RTI SOAP Services ITEM Simulation Engine SOAP/BEEP Communications over “Internet” BEEP Communications Remote RTI & Federate Ambassadors RTI API SOAP Services BEEP Communications Communication Architecture for Exemplar Demonstration

5. 5 Why is Web-Enabling the RTI Important? Implements bi-directional communication initiation over the Web Superior to http with its uni-directional initiation http unsuitable for supporting simulation communication patterns Enables existing HLA compliant federates to be integrated easily over the Internet Including through most firewalls with minimal reconfiguration! Demonstrates Web Service wrapping of existing architectures Approach can also be applied to DIS, ALSP, etc.

6. 6 Next Steps Document current approach as an XMSF Profile Extend current implementation Expand the set of HLA services supported Currently completing DDM services Develop Web Service wrappers for launching federates remotely Enables composability of federates stored in repositories Refine RTI API XML mapping of 1.3 Java APIs vs. 1.3 C++ APIs Develop IEEE 1516 XML mapping C++ and Java APIs are closer in 1516 than in 1.3 Establish SAIC web server and install externally accessible demo federation Identify partnership opportunity for operational deployment of this XMSF Profile Possibly extension of XDV

7. 7 What’s in an XMSF Profile? The working definition of an XMSF profile is currently: The set of protocols used for an application domain The set of data and metadata standards used A detailed description for applying protocols and data standards to implement the architecture

8. 8 Defining an XMSF Profile Standard Currently establishing a SISO Study Group to define the profile standard Terms of Reference worked on XMSF discussion reflector over the last two months, resulting in refined profile scope: Applicable web technologies and protocol standards Applicable data and metadata standards A tailoring of the set of selected standards (e.g. tailoring of authentication standards) Recommendations and guidelines for implementation Composability guidelines Technology application guidance Hardware configuration recommendations, requirements, and constraints, e.g. network bandwidth, minimum processing capability Software configuration recommendations, requirements, and constraints, e.g. browser support for specific applications Specialization of design methodologies Approved by SISO Standards Activities Committee SISO email reflector established and expect to start work on profiles within the next month (SIW-SG-XMSF@itcenter.org)

9. 9 Questions about Profiles that we will Resolve What format should the profiles take: XML? Some UML? How detailed do process descriptions need to be? What’s the minimum footprint for a particular profile, e.g. core or base profile? Protocols Platforms Seamless transition between standalone and networked Will they include security as a component, or will security be handled in separate profiles?

10. 10 The Web-Enabled RTI Profile The set of protocols used for an application domain Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) HLA Strictly speaking, not a protocol, but it fits most closely into this category within the current definition. The fact that it doesn’t fit well may indicate an area for refinement of our profile definition. The set of data and metadata standards used Developing RTI API data standards Space does not permit reproducing all 136 service calls and their variants here A detailed description for applying protocols and data standards to implement the architecture Web-Enabled RTI will be offered as first test case for evolving profile standard UML appears to be part of the solution

11. 11 Profile SG Proposed Tasks 1. Identify potential candidate implementations for profiling. 2. Survey profile definitions in other technology domains. 3. Determine applicability of other profile definitions to XMSF. 4. Review early XMSF exemplars to identify the breadth of information required to document interoperability with the exemplars. 5. Identify XMSF specific requirements for profiles. 6. Identify/specify/recommend a mechanism for documenting the interrelationships of the applicable web-based technologies, protocol standards, and metadata markups selected for a profile. 7. Draft XMSF profile standard. 1330 - 1700 18 Sept. 2003 Fall SIW Manatee Rm.