1. 0 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data & Processes for Aircrew Training & Mission Rehearsal Study Group (RIEDP-SG) SIW F10 Orlando September 2010 « All the hammers see their problem in the form of a nail … »

2. 1 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 1 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

3. 2 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Organization AOrganization B Introduction Scope Sets of Data A Set of Tools A Reusability Correlation Interoperability Set of Tools B Sets of Data B Data for Target Applications Various Initiatives : Correlation and Reuse at risk Duplication of costs Source Data Different DataBase Generation Processes …

4. 3 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Introduction Scope CGF A ‘s Vision of a scene  Location of the river  Trees density on the river banks  Locations of A/C and Tanks A/C Simulator B ‘s Vision of the scene  Same Locations for the entities But  River’s location slightly different  Lower Trees density … impede Correlation & Reuse of Data, and interoperability of Sims Differences on Data, Work on data, Construction rules, Naming conventions

5. 4 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Introduction Where does this SG come from ? SIW F09 - Special Workshop Results  Attendance  60 persons on average (peak 70)  Shown interest in the M&S Community regarding this issue  Content  Opportunity for the International Community involved with the creation, dissemination, and development of environmental representations and effects databases to discuss existing or emerging approaches, processes, standards, and lessons learned  Main Lessons Learnt  Practitioners use Same General Approach in Generation of Environmental Data Products  Source Data is used in Internal Data Generation Processes to produce Final Products  However, Data Generation Processes differ from one Producer/Integrator to another  Impeding both Data Reuse and Final Interoperability of Target Applications  Harmonization of Environmental Data Representations and Processes at the "Integrated" Level ?  Follow-on  Some of the Attendees volunteered to participate in Future Workshops

6. 5 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Introduction Creation of the RIEDP-SG  According to TOR, the RIEDP-SG shall execute the following Tasks:  Conduct an informal survey of the U.S. and international M&S Communities for on- going Initiatives that might serve as part of the overall common solution.  Define and document a Reference Database Generation Process that can include:  Establishing a common terminology  Identifying common areas in data generation processes between communities  Identifying requirements for one or more standard solutions to foster interoperation and reuse of environmental databases and processes.  Recommending how to expand the initial focus to cover additional requirements.  Assess the time and effort required to develop and deploy one or more standard solutions for the interoperation and reuse of environmental databases and processes.  Produce (one or possibly two) interim, and a final, report summarizing the state-of-the- practice, alternatives, and recommending a SISO group activity appropriate for establishing common standards or products for interoperation and reuse of environmental databases and processes. Reference Model for Database Generation Process Focus on Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal applications

7. 6 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Introduction Creation of the RIEDP-SG  Performance Period:  The RIEDP-SG shall begin at the Spring 2010 SIW.  The Final Report of the Study Group shall be submitted to the SAC either at the Spring or Fall 2011 SIW.  Products:  The Final Report shall be the formal product produced by the Study Group.  If the SG decides to move to a PDG, a Product Nomination will be drafted and sent to SAC for approval.  Notes shall be taken during meetings in accordance with SISO common practices and posted on the RIEDP-SG SISO reflector (to be created).

8. 7 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Election to the following positions during SIW S10 :  Chair : Jean-Louis Gougeat  Vice Chair : Steve Stephens  Secretary : David Graham David’s health / personal Issues have prevented him from participating.  He suggested it might be wise for the Study Group to elect someone else to serve as Secretary.  He confirmed his interest in the SG results Volunteers for Secretary? Introduction Election of Officers

9. 8 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Introduction Active members and Intermediate Results Special Workshop committee members still directly active in RIEDP-SG:  Gilbert CASTANER, SOGITEC  Farid MAMAGHANI, SEDRIS Organization  Jean-Louis GOUGEAT, SOGITEC  Steve STEPHENSUSAF/AFRL + Contribution and attendance in 3 meetings since Fall Special Workshop:  SIW S10  ITEC 2010  Image2010 Results to be analysed /assessed /amended /leveraged and/or extended Strong Interest was expressed at the 2009 Special Workshop. Now is the time to participate in RIEDP !

10. 9 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 9 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

11. 10 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 10 Attendance  19 people Administrative  Successful elections at the positions of :  Chair : Jean-Louis GOUGEAT - Vice Chair : Steve STEPHENS - Secretary : David GRAHAM Results  RIEDP TOR - Revised version to show that :  the focus is made on Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal applications,  and specifically taking into account the NPSI, AFCD, CDB, SE Core, and French approach processes and data models with the expectation to improve their interoperability and reuse in a standardized approach  as part of its outcome, the SG will recommend how to expand this focus to cover additional requirements.  Principles of collective work  SISO Reflector based on list of attendees + additional proponents  E-mail and audio conference  Physical meeting during M&S Main Events in addition to SIW : ITEC, IITSEC Action Items  Submission of the Revised version of TOR to SISO (SAC et EXCOM)Done  Initialization of the RIEDP-SG ReflectorDone  Distribution of the Slides of the First MeetingDone  Kick Off of the SG work by issuing a technical note on the characteristics of the Selected InitiativesDone Summary of 1st (Organizational) Meeting SIW S10 Orlando

12. 11 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Summary of 2nd Meeting ITEC 2010 London Attendance  14 people  DataSim, TNO, NLR, CAE (2), Thales T&S, USAF (2), Sogitec (2), SEDRIS, UK MOD, Antycip Administrative  SAC coordination - Reflector Results  Agreed “mission statement for the SG” a.The SG will create and document a Common Reference Process Model for the Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data & Processes for Aircrew Training & Mission Rehearsal; b.The SG, through a combination of surveys, analysis, discovery, and committee work will attempt to “map” the candidate list of initiatives ‘to’ the Common Reference Process Model described in (a). above, and, c.The SG will use the model and the mapping from (a) and (b) above to guide recommendations to the SAC with regard to standards / products / nominations. Action Items  Gilbert Castaner took the action to develop and publish a draft of Survey guidelines, with an objective completion date of ‘the end of next week’ (28 May 2010) Done  Assessment of the Survey guidelines by the Group Members (on going) Reference Model for Database Generation Process Terrain Data, Processes on Data, Data on the Processes Data on data …..

13. 12 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Summary of 3rd Meeting IMAGE 2010 Scottsdale (1/3) Attendance  12 people  Boeing, COGENT 3D, Rockwell Collins, Sogitec (2), TNO, USAF (3), USN (1), USSOCOM (1) Administrative  Not easy to set up the meeting - Hosted in USAF participant’s Hotel Room (Thanks again)  But In-person Meetings make things progress ! Results  New Participants (which is great) with little Awareness of RIEDP  Rockwell Collins, Boeing, USSOCOM  Targeted Initiatives (AFCD, NPSI, CDB/USSOCOM,…) seem in a steady state  They don’t yet foresee the possible added value / are concerned about possible new constraints  Need to keep on explaining RIEDP Objectives and Goals with these new Viewpoints  Not a Run Time Issue  Study Group (not PDG) aiming at scoping a possible PDG  Results of PDG could be recommendation for best practices  “Do not harm” - “Seek Convergence” – “Interoperability/Reuse has a cost” - “Olympic Events”  Main Focus :  Create and Document a Reference Database Generation Process Model (RDGPM)  Assess the Initiatives/approaches against this RDGPM  Identify possible areas of convergence  Recommend standards / products / nominations What is the purpose of this SG ?

14. 13 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Summary of 3rd Meeting IMAGE 2010 Scottsdale (2/3) Additional outcomes  The perspectives of end-user, customers (buyers), and builders of databases must be taken into account when conducting the survey and developing the “reference process model”  Seeming conflict between the DoD-wide desire for LVC interoperability and program- specific requirements constraints  Possible limitations on reuse because of data or Intellectual Property Rights  Limit of responsibility between Customer (Program Requirements) and Contractor (Tech Solutions)  Consistent description of feature-attribute relationships, constraints, and terminology is seen as a key Issue to address …  “but choices were made for good reasons !”  Not many Initiatives currently focus on standardization toward the “right hand side of the data base generation process”  Can be done by focusing on standardizing the integration of Data Layers Decision  Participants to Fill out the Survey

15. 14 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Summary of 3rd Meeting Image2010 Scottsdale (3/3) Action Items  Update and clean up the Survey guidelinesDone  Receive feed back from RIEDP members to the Survey Guidelinesvery few  Send updated Survey guidelines to the InitiativesDone  Obtain the document on the metadata associated with NPSI effortPending  Send the presentation slides to the reflectorDone  Provide a copy of the slides to those who asked for it but may not be on the reflector (TNO, Rockwell Collins, USSOCOM)Done  Resolve how to deal with the position that M&S Program constraints rule out technical enhancement of the DB process alignmentTBD

16. 15 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 15 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

17. 16 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 16 RIEDP-SG Tasks as per TOR : 1.Conduct an informal survey on on-going Initiatives 2.Define and document a Reference Database Generation Process Model:  a - Establish a common terminology  b - “map” the candidate list of initiatives ‘to’ the RDGPM  c - Identify requirements for one or more standard solutions 3.Synthesis  a - Assess the time and effort required for PDG activities  b - Produce Interim and Final Reports Focus of the Meeting  Review of the Study Process  Assessment of the Survey Process  Completing the Informal Survey (1)  Lessons Learned  Towards a RDGPM / Common terminology (2.a)  From the Process to the Data Model  Areas of Divergence Meeting Objectives

18. 17 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 17 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

19. 18 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Study Process Review Principles Review Initiative 1 Documentation Initiative 2 Documentation Initiative n Documentation Survey Guide lines Initiative 1 Capabilities Initiative 2 Capabilities Initiative n Capabilities Reference Database Generation Process Model Initiatives (AFCD, NPSI, CDB, SECORE, Fr, Nato) Dataset provider type Database provider type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.Begin from a collection of existing approaches (initiatives) 2.Use existing approaches to develop the survey guidelines (to cover many possible issues) 3.Distribute the Survey guidelines to all initiatives 4.Use the results of the Survey to capture each approach's "capabilities" 5.Extract (factor out) common approach building blocks, as well as unique steps 6.Build a "Reference Database Generation Process Model" 7.Evaluate each approach's capabilities to the common model 8.Identify areas of divergence Process Breakdown Data Model Assessment Areas of Divergence 8

20. 19 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Study Process Review Current Status Initiative 1 Documentation Initiative 2 Documentation Initiative n Documentation Survey Guide lines Initiative 1 Capabilities Initiative 2 Capabilities Initiative n Capabilities Reference Database Generation Process Model Initiatives (AFCD, NPSI, CDB, SECORE, Fr, Nato) Dataset provider type Database provider type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.Begin from a collection of existing approaches (initiatives) 2.Use existing approaches to develop the survey guidelines (to cover many possible issues) 3.Distribute the Draft Survey guidelines to all initiatives 4.Use the results of the Survey to capture each approach's "capabilities" 5.Extract (factor out) common approach building blocks, as well as unique steps 6.Build a "Reference Database Generation Process Model" 7.Evaluate each approach's capabilities to the common model 8.Identify areas of divergence Process Breakdown Data Model Assessment Areas of Divergence 8

21. 20 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Study Process Review Survey Status Survey Guidelines  Needed to be clarified - Improved  Investigation into the Data Model part of the Process  Updated version of the Survey Guidelines : available / sent Filling out of the Survey  NLR (the Netherlands) and French contributions done  Other contributions expected (Germany recently volunteered) Information gathering from Initiatives  AFCD documentation : Available  NPSI documentation : Available. Complementary information expected on metadata :  “NPSI 2.3: NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative Standard for Reusable Source Dataset Metadata.”  “MPRD 2.1: NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative Standard for Material Properties Reference Database.”  CDB Specification : Available. Information needed on USSOCOM process using CDB  SE CORE : information needed  NLR : Information on NATO “Mission Land” : Available  French Approach documentation : Available on current process. Expected on new process.

22. 21 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Study Process Review Survey Guidelines  Process Breakdown  Environmental Data  Source Data  Stages in the process  Operation  and their localization in the process  Target applications  Imports/exports  and their localizations in the process  Process Breakdown  Environmental Data  Source Data  Stages in the process  Operation  and their localization in the process  Target applications  Imports/exports  and their localizations in the process  Data Representation  Environmental Representation Model  Spatial reference frame  Data Organization  Software architecture and tools  Data Formats  Metadata  Reference dictionaries  Data Representation  Environmental Representation Model  Spatial reference frame  Data Organization  Software architecture and tools  Data Formats  Metadata  Reference dictionaries  Name of Initiative  Point of Contact  Name of Initiative  Point of Contact  Glossary  List of documentation  Data about the End User  Further Information  Glossary  List of documentation  Data about the End User  Further Information Survey GuideLines

23. 22 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 22 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

24. 23 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Draft Mapping of the Process Breakdown to the Initiatives  We are assuming the subject is covered by the initiative ? We have no information !We are assuming the scope though detailed information on process is missing Blank we are assuming the subject is not covered

25. 24 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 From the Process perspective Heavy Trends  Features are more and more derived from the Terrain Image  Native correlation  Correlation between Elevation and Features/Image  Still needs some work – To be capitalized/capitalizable  Achieved within the Layers - with GIS products  possibly by GIS data providers  Terrain gets more and more detailed  But GIS World is leading !  Data and Tools to process the GIS Data exist  Except in “non commercial” areas where traditional manual work is necessary Approach relying on GIS products is relevant

26. 25 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 From the Process perspective Links between Terrain & Features USAF and US Navy Terrain Descriptions :  Both use similar and consistent approaches (US Navy’s more formalized (incl. Airport description, …)  Consistent with French Approach However both USAF and USN are focused on Source Data processing  Terrain Representation Modeling :  Elevation & Imagery  Features with attributes  Libraries  3D Object Model (in O F) for the Point Features  Construction Rules Principles and Description for Linear and Areal Features classes  Specific Rules and/or Formats are unknown  Integration and relationships between Instances from Terrain representation and Classes from Libraries is not explicit  E.g. : Attributes / metadata mentioned but not documented (in the missing NPSI Documents ?) French Approach is aiming at including these relationships in a standard :  Because of correlation needs at the LVC level  e.g. Air and Ground Activities, coalition (Fair Fight)

27. 26 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Draft Mapping of the Process Breakdown to the Initiatives  We are assuming the subject is covered by the initiative ? We have no information !We are assuming the scope though detailed information on process is missing Blank we are assuming the subject is not covered

28. 27 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Variability and Commonness of the Data Models across the Initiatives Areal features Linear features Imagery Point features Elevation ShapeFile Description ShapeFile Description ShapeFile Description Library Initiative A 3D Object Open Flight ? Attributes Texture, … ? Attributes Texture, … Library Initiative B 3D Object Open Flight ? Attributes Texture, … ? Attributes Texture, … Library Initiative C 3D Object Open Flight ? Attributes Texture, … ? Attributes Texture, … Librariet 3D Object Open Flight ? Attributes Texture, … ? Attributes Texture, …

29. 28 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Convergence vs Variability Many areas of Convergence  GIS Format  Layers, Tiles (?)  LOD … Tile (X – Y) Tiles Library Features Aerial instances Linear instances Point instances Airport Features Imagery Elevation DB Other Layers Rules Attributes Objects Moving Static Classes Linear classes Aerial classes Point classes Mapping Table DTED, … OF, Shape TIF, … ? ? Libraries Xml ? ? ? OF Shape files Direct to Library Object Indirect to Library indirect Many areas of Variability  Feature-Attribution Relationships – Attribution Dictionaries  Naming conventions, Standard Options, Rules Logical Organization of data is common across many Initiatives But the Details that would support understanding of the Data varies very significantly

30. 29 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Convergence vs Variability In order to establish and document the RDGP, we need to :  Confirm Areas of convergence  Formalize Areas of variability  Feature-Attribution Relationships – Attribution Dictionaries  Naming conventions, Standard Options, Rules  Beware of  Differences between  Logical Data Model  Physical/Implementation Data Model  Differences between :  End-of-the-Process Data Model : « close to the Targets »  Integrated-Level Data Model : dedicated to Interchange between Consumers

31. 30 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Lessons Learned Miscellaneous From IMAGE  Standards  Importance of Use / Adherence to standards - Reuse and Correlation Issues  Role of Programs in supporting the Standards - And benefits to them  Intellectual Property Rights  Limits in transferability of funded work  A contract Issue, as Reuse and Leveraging prior Work is Preferred at MoD / DoD Level ?  Study Group - PDG Results – Impact on programs  SG Results will be a recommendation to a PDG  PDG Results should be a set of best practices fostering Correlation / Reuse  Programs can decide whether they wish to adhere to standards or not  Benefiting from GIS community  COTS products facilitate the work on Source Data sets (with high Reuse ability)  But addressing Correlation Issues requires fostering reuse toward the “middle” of the Process All these issues are key to achieving LVC Interoperability  Extented meaning of LVC : including multiple combinations of L/V/C (eg. VV)

32. 31 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 31 Agenda  Introduction  Summary of Previous Meetings  Meeting Objectives  Study Process Review  Lessons Learnt / Intermediate Results  Way Forward

33. 32 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Way Forward Formalizing the Approach while taking into account the data and process  Establishing the Common Terminology  Process and Data  Representing the Relationships  Depends whether we are representing Process Relationships or Data Relationships  Initiating a IDEF 1X-based Process Model  Initiating a UML-based Data Model Principles / Volunteers  ? Attention !  Based on the Assumption that the informal Survey process provides significant results

34. 33 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Way Forward Actions Any comments on the current approach ? Completing the Survey  All initiatives - Based on the Survey Guidelines  Due date ? TBD  Process of returning the completed Survey ? TBD Survey Report  How do we elaborate / What could be a Framework for:  The list of Initiatives (OK)  The reference Documentation per initiative (~OK)  The synthesis per initiative  The global synthesis

35. 34 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Way Forward Organization Other administrative issues  Setting up a RIEDP Library in SISO Website  Subscribing to the RIEDP mailing list

36. 35 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Way Forward Next Meetings Virtual meeting  Teleconference to be planned ? Live Meeting  ?  IITSEC

37. 36 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Conclusion

38. 37 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Spare

39. 38 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 Initiative AInitiative B GIS World Generation Processes vs Correlation and Reuse Source Integrated Executable Source Integrated Executable Publishing Integration Edition Publishing Integration Edition Reusability Correlation Interoperability

40. 39 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 GIS World Data ? What Data are we interested in ? xxx Process Terrain Data Data on Terrain Data Data on Process Processed Data Data on Processed Data Level 1, 2 or 3 Used in Created by Provided to Execution Data Generated ? ? ? GIS Target

41. 40 4th RIEDP-SG Meeting - SIW F 2010 SIF Weaknesses Considering current Scenes requirements  Inefficient 3D models format  Compared to O F (no hierarchy)  Poor Texture handling  Connected at Instance level (no Library)  One texture per polygon (no texture comutation)  Poor Lights handling  Pseudo physical description, too sensitive to IG capability  Far from COTS formats