1. RIEDP-SG S13 SIW Meeting San Diego 11/04/13

2. Agenda  Summary of previous steps  Meeting objectives  Summary of Approval First Round  SAC’s comments on Final Report and PN  Review of the actions taken by the Core Team  Status of Approval Second Round  30 Days Community Review  Comments  Review of the PN  What is next  Towards Approval of the PN  Towards the PDG  AOB S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 2

3. Summary of previous steps 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 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 3

4. 4 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 Report Summary of previous steps RIEDP-SG Tasks S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 4

5. Summary of previous steps Creation of the RIEDP-SG  Performance Period:  The RIEDP-SG began 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). S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 5

6. Summary of previous steps Study Process Principles Review Initiative 1 Documentation Initiative 2 Documentation Initiative n Documentation Questionnaire Initiative 1 Capabilities Initiative 2 Capabilities Initiative n Capabilities Reference Database Generation Process Model Initiatives (AFCD, NPSI, CDB, SECORE, Fr, NATO, UK) 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 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 6

7. 7 Physical Meetings  Meeting n°1 Spring SIWOrlando Apr ’10;  Meeting n°2 ITEC 2010 London May ’10;  Meeting n°3 Image 2010Phoenix July ’10;  Meeting n°4 Fall SIW Orlando Sept ’10;  Meeting n°5 I/ITSEC OrlandoDec ’10;  Meeting n°6 Spring SIW BostonApr ’11;  Meeting n°7Fall SIWOrlandoSept ’11  Meeting n°8I/ITSECOrlandoDec ‘11  Meeting n°9Spring SIWOrlandoMarch ’12  Meeting n°10Fall SIWOrlandoSept ’12  This meetingSpring SIWSan DiegoApr ‘13 Summary of previous steps RIEDP-SG Meetings S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 7

8. 8 Summary of previous steps RIEDP-SG Meetings Web meetings organized between physical meetings: Web meeting n°1November the 19th ’10 Web meeting n°2February the 3rd ’11; Web meeting n°3March the 30th ’11; Web meeting n°4 April the 5th’11; Web meeting n°5 April the 6th’11; Web meeting n°6 June the 6th ’11; Web meeting n°7 September the 2nd ’11; Web meeting n°8January the 27 th ’12; Web meeting n°9August the 10 th ’12 Web meeting n°10February the 27 th ’13 Web meeting n°11March the 27 th ’13

9. Summary of previous steps RIEDP-SG main contributors  USAF/AFCD Steve Stevens (co Chair) Mike Sieverding Amos Kent  US Army / SE Core Rob Cox  USSOCOM /CDB - CAE David Graham  NAVAIR/NPSI Kerey Howard Bruce Riner  French Approach (Sogitec) JL Gougeat Gilbert Castaner  NGA Paul Foley  SEDRIS Farid Mamaghani  Abamis Warren Macchi (Secr.)  UK Mod & SISO TAD Grant Bailey  NATO & NLR  Arjan Lemmers S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 9 Full List

10. 10 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 Summary of previous steps Study process Results Reference Database Generation Process Model Process Data

11. Abstract Data Model In general : a higher level semantics of how data is organized and related. does not deal with individual variations that may be represented by specific instances of a higher level concept (class), nor is it intended to provide the structures needed to realize a physical database. In our case : each initiative has a specific data model, representing its specific view of the environmental data with which it is concerned. These different data models are studied and consolidated into a single abstract (more conceptual) data model that represents the common super-set of the individual data models. Each of the individual initiatives' data models may be thought of as specific examples/instances of the abstract data model, if the abstract data model were to be realized using the specific and unique constraints and characteristics of that individual data model. Since the abstract data model acts as a reference for each of the individual data models, it is also called the abstract reference data model. 11 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

12. Reference Process Model S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 12

13. Reference Process Model vs SE Core 13 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

14. Reference Process Model vs AFCD 14 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

15. Reference Process Model - Enhancement 15 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

16. Reference Abstract Data Model @ Intermediate Level 16 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

17. Reference Abstract Data Model @ Intermediate Level 17 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 Elevation Layer Feature Layer 3D Objects Layer Texture Layer Convergence Common format Variability …….

18. Summary of previous steps Scope of the possible PDG Standardization efforts needed in following areas :  Data model, formats, attribution and “miscellaneous” (incl. metadata). Divided along two axes leading to two products:  Data model foundations with:  The upper level part of the RADM with the principles of […] Tiles, Layers, Library,...  The medium level part of the RADM with a set of common layers […].  An (optional) tiling scheme to facilitate reuse;  Detailed description of the layers at the lower level part of the RADM:  Objects: Identification of geo-specific object instances and classes (features, 3D objects, textures) within the Library, and the linkage between instances and classes;  Dictionary: choice of semantics and mapping with existing dictionaries;  Attribution: two tasks are needed in this area: –Identification of a common list of features and attributes –Identification and definition of common attribution rules. 18 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

19. Summary of previous steps Status of the RIEDP-SG  Performance Period:  The RIEDP-SG began 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). S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013 19 Approved by members during SIW F11 Two Draft since SIW F11 Comments from SAC (07/12) Has shifted a little

20. 20 Meeting Objectives  Summary of Approval First Round  SAC’s comments on Report and PN  Review of the actions taken by the Core Team  Status of Approval Second Round  30 Days Community Review  Comments  Review of the PN  What is next  Towards Approval of the PN  Towards the PDG 20 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

21. Summary of Approval First Round SAC’s comments on Report and PN  Modify the format of the documents according to the provided templates  Final Report  Product Nomination  Reconsider the choice of the Product type for both products  Not Standard but rather (balloted) Guidance or (unballoted) Reference products  Change improper reference to SEDRIS as a NATO STANAG in the appendix of the Final Report 21 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

22. Summary of Approval First Round Review of the actions taken by the Core Team  Discussion and agreement on “SEDRIS statement” (NATO Stanag ?)  Quoting somebody -> no change in this quote ?  We established the perfect wording with NATO … and then the situation changed !! –SEDRIS Promulgated !  Discussion and agreement on the Product Types  Environmental Data Model Foundations (RPM + RADM) : Guidance Product  Environmental Detailed Features Description : Standard Product  BTW : Definition of the Standard types needs clarification  New wording for the description of the two products  Change of the documents according to the templates  Well, not for the Final report !  Submission to & Approval by SG members Approval of documents Final Report : By SAC and EXCOM PN : SAC accepted to enter the 30 days community review 22 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

23. Status of Approval Second Round  The 30 Day Community Review  Launched 22 February – Ended Saturday, 23 March  Web Page  Requirements  Total of 11 CommentsComments  RIEDP SG Actions  Telecon March 29th with Core members  Contacts with Commenters  PN modifications  Comments resolution  Com 1 : Review with George Stone by JLG  George happy with resolution  Other : Email exchange with Marcy  Marcy wishes « good luck » …  Global : Meeting Paul Lowe, Peggy and JLG  Paul’s recommandations  Review of the PN Review of the PN 23 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

24. What is next  Towards Approval of the PN  Final Editing  Traceability of the Commenters approval ?  Document references and dates?  Revision history?  Line numbering  Approval process  Final version after SIW  Peggy to forward to SAC ?  5 day review by SAC  Estimated date of approval 24 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

25. The Way Forward : PDG When/If PN approved  Kick Off meeting  Depends on approval process - Physical Meeting preferred …  SISO Process SISO Process  Pre requisite  Active participation of volunteering Initiatives required (Drafting Group)  French Contribution to PDG  Still expecting Support from French MoD  For the time being, coordination of PDG is possible (if elected !)  Contributions to PDG from Initiatives identified in PN  To be confirmed  Approach  As explained in the PN … 25 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

26. The Way Forward : PDG The two products :  RIEDP Data Model Foundations (DMF) as a SISO Guidance document  Composed of the Reference Process Model and the Reference Abstract Data Model  The RIEDP Detailed Features Description (DFD) as a SISO Standard product  Identification of features, their definitions (through the use of standardized dictionaries), their corresponding attributes, and any associated metadata. Approach (Theory)  The first product is needed to establish how different database generation processes and systems relate to each other (by using a common RPM and RADM).  As the first product is being developed, it will be used to establish the second product (RIEDP Detailed Features Descriptions), which, in turn, enables better interoperability between those processes and systems. Practicaly  We can enter the circle as we want ! 26 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

27. Building the RIEDP DMF/RPM For each participating entity  Using as a general guide the Final Report Version of the RPM  Describe your Process Model (Stages, Tasks) with your definitions and Terminology  Note :  The Final Report RPM was largely based upon the NAVAIR documentation  This could be used to build a template facilitating the work of each Initiative by differences  Eventually helping convergence  Actions 1.Establish a template 2.Fill out the template by each Participant 3.Consolidate the RPM with shared notions 27 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

28. Building the RIEDP DMF/RADM For each participating entity  Using as a general guide the Final Report Version of the RADM  Describe your Data Model with you definitions and Terminology  RADM Upper part : Tiles, Layers, Library,...  RADM Middle part : set of common layers and associated data formats (Elevation, Features, 3D models, Texture / Imagery,..)  Actions 1.Establish a template 2.Fill out the template by each Participant 3.Consolidate the RADM with shared notions 28 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

29. Building the RIEDP DFD For each participating entity  Complement your Data Model with you definitions and Terminology  Objects :  Identify object instances and classes from Library (features, 3D objects, textures)  Linkage between instances and classes;  Dictionary:  Describe semantics and dictionnary  Position vs existing dictionaries  Attribution of objects:  Identify list of features and attributes (concept, range of values, application domain), based on the dictionary ;  Identify attribution rules  Actions 1.Establish a template 2.Fill out the template by each Participant 3.Consolidate the DFR with shared notions 29 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

30. PDG Agenda and Deliverables April 2013PDG Approval April 2013Launch development activity April 2013PDG Officer Elections Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary Entire CycleMonitor PDG activities May 2013Establish Drafting Group May 2013Establish development schedule and Drafting Group Assignments December 2013Produce First Draft of Both Products April 2014 (Spring SIW)Comment / Resolution Round 1 - First Draft of Both Products August 2014Produce Second Draft of Both Products September 2014 (Fall SIW)Comment / Resolution Round 2 - Second Draft of Both Products December 2014Produce Final Draft of Both Products & Prepare Balloting Package January 2015Submit Draft Product to SAC and EXCOM for 'Approval to Ballot' March 2015Initial Ballot Preparation May 2015Ballot Execution June 2015Ballot Resolution July 2015Recirculation Ballot Preparation (if needed) September 2015Recirculation Ballot Execution October 2015Recirculation Ballot Resolution November 2015Submit Balloted Products and Supporting Material to SAC December 2015Product Approval by SAC and EXCOM* 30 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

31. AOB

32. Spare

33. 33 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

34. Product Types 1.Standards Products are formally approved items that reflect consensus agreements on products, practices, or operations, as required, by simulation industry applications. SISO Standards are to be stable, well understood, technically competent, and have multiple independent interoperable implementations. In addition they should enjoy significant public support, and be recognizably useful in some or all parts of the simulation community. Compliance with a SISO Standard requires conformance with all of the “shalls” in the Standard. 2.Guidance Products are items that can control the development, integration, and use of common reference data in some portion of the Modeling and Simulation community. Guidance Products are similar to Standards in that they describe SISO Best and Current Practices. A recommended development process is an example of a Guidance Product. 3.Reference Products are sources of information that provide a passive input to models and simulations. Reference Products may also be an aid to research. Reference Products include reports prepared by Study Groups, data dictionaries, lexicons and the SIW Proceedings. 4.Administrative Products are developed by SISO to guide the operations and practices of the organization. Administrative Products may also be the result of the operations of the organization. Examples of Administrative Products are the SISO Vision document and this SISO Policies and Procedures document. 34 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

35. SAC’s Comments For the RIEDP SG Final Report there are two things that need to be addressed: First the format: It needs to be updated per current template – see attached ms word template file provided as a go-by for a Study Group Final Report - which will be posted as a SISO-REF (reference) product once approved. Note – as a MS Word template file (.dot) it will create / open a ms word document file (just save and double click template file and it will open a document1 file for you to complete and save with your filename). Second - comments received to include: On the last page of the report, the last sentence reads: "It should be noted that the SEDRIS ISO/IEC standards are also NATO STANAGS." This sentence was included as "Complementary information on SE Core." Although it is true that DRAFT STANAGs exist, they have yet to receive the necessary votes from the needed number of countries to be accepted as NATO STANAGS. So this statement is untrue as written and is misleading. Before approved, I would like to see a note added that says something like this, "SISO SAC NOTE: Draft NATO STANAGs 4662-4664, dated 24 June 2011, have yet to be ratified by an appropriate number of nations to be accepted as STANAGs by NATO as the approval of this final report." For the RIEDP Product Nomination (PN) there are two things that need to be addressed: 2A: First the format: The Product Nomination must also be put into the correct format (which involves copying/pasting the current format into the format with a coversheet, copyright notice, revision history, table of contents, etc..). Attached is an existing product nomination you can use as a template to quickly convert this document. 2B: Second, based on comments which included: “Which types of SISO Products that the PDG plans to produce is still not understood” – after additional clarification it was recommended that the current proposed products be of a different type. The original proposed product nomination proposed that both products would be balloted standards. However, comments received recommended that neither of these products should be a SISO standard; but instead the proposed products could fall under either the definition of a balloted guidance product or an unballoted reference product. 35 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

36. SAC’s Comments Discussion …. The decision on what type of products these two proposed RIEDP products should be depends on what they are supposed to do and also the relationship of the two proposed products. If they are going to be documents with information included that will not change for about 5 years, then a balloted guidance product “SISO-GUIDE” should be considered. If the information in one or both of them will keep changing/growing and need updating, then an unballoted reference product “SISO-REF” should be considered. Also, if one document is needed to implement the other perhaps one is a reference product and the other one a guidance product. It is also important to consider that the work required by a PDG to complete the steps for balloted products is sometimes challenging. This may be a consideration if it meets the requirements that one of the proposed products is developed as an unballoted reference product and the other a balloted guidance product. The example product nomination document attached provides example of how more than one product type is proposed in one product nomination – and how these products support/relate to each other. For a reference for balloted guidance product definition/description please refer to ‘balloted products’ in section 4.1.3.3 of SISO-ADM-003-2011: SISO Balloted Products Development and Support Process (BPDSP) available at www.sisostds.org / under products and publications / administrative documents.www.sisostds.org For Reference: Proposed Product Titles: #1 The Environmental Data Model Foundations based on the formalization of a Reference Process Model (RPM) and a Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM) which were addressed by the RIEDP SG; #2 The Environmental Detailed Features Description, aiming to improve reuse and interoperability between participating initiatives identified within the RIEDP SG 36 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013

37. MS WORD « Attribution Issue »  Process : Generation of a Text Document  Organisations involved : Peggy and … me  Tools : MS Word/US and MS Word/FR  Interoperability Issue identified :  Table of Illustration created by Peggy, appears « Empty » on the other side  Explanation  Table entries are identified based on :  The Style « Caption » affected to the Figures names  The Field as per the following code : {TOC \h \z \t “Caption" \c}  In the French Version, Style « Caption » is automatically changed into « Légende »  But not the Table of Illustration, whose code remains {TOC \h \z \t “Caption" \c}  A magnificent attribution issue !  Attention !  Solution is NOT to work only in the US MS Word Environment  Solution is user-defined Style name for figures and TOI in the template 37 S13 SIW Meeting – San Diego 11/04/2013