With the advent of Network-Centric Warfare (NCW) concepts, Command and Control (C2) systems need efficient methods to produce, exchange, and consume diverse kinds of information within the networks. The System Entity Structure (SES) is an ontology framework that can facilitate information exchange in a network environment. From the perspective of the SES information exchange framework, the Battle Management Language (BML) serves to specify the information desired by a consumer in an unambiguous way. This paper formulates information exchange in the SES ontology via BML and defines novel pruning and transformation processes of the SES to extract and fuse data into higher-level representations. This supports increased interoperability between human users and other sensor systems. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed information exchange framework for data fusion systems, we illustrate the approach in an air defense operation scenario using Discrete Event System Specification (DEVS) modeling and simulation. The demonstration shows that the information requested by a commander is delivered in the right way at the right time so that it can support agile decision making against threats.
Alberts DS, Garstka JJ, Stein FPNetwork Centric Warfare: Developing And Leveraging Information Superiority , 2nd edn. CCRP, 2000.
2.
Shahbazian E.Introduction to DF: Models and Processes, Architectures, Techniques and Applications . In: Multisensor Fusion. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 71-97.
3.
Brooks RR, Iyengar SSMulti-sensor Fusion: Fundamentals and Applications with Software. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998.
4.
Das S.High-Level Data Fusion. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2008.
5.
Liggins ME, II, Chong CY, Kadar I., Alford MG, Vannicola V., Thomophoulos S.Distributed Fusion Architectures and Algorithms for Target Tracking. Proceedings of the IEEE1997; 85(1): pp. 95-107.
6.
McErlean D., Narayanan S.Distributed Detection and Tracking in Sensor Networks. In: 2002, Conference Record of the Thirty-Sixth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, November 2002.
7.
Blach E.Level 5(User Refinement) Issues Supporting Information Fusion Management . In: 9th International Conference on Information Fusion , Firenze, Italy, July 2006.
8.
Blach E., Plano S.Level 5: User Refinement to Aid the Fusion Process. In: Multisensor, Multisource Information Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications 2003 (Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5099), April 2003 .
9.
Baumgrtner N., Retschitzegger W.Toward a Situation Awareness Framework Based on Primitive Relations . In: Proceedings of Information, Decision and Control 2007 , Adelaide, Australia, February 2007 .
10.
Matheus CJ, Baclawski K., Kokar MMDerivation Of Ontological Methods in a Situation Awareness Scenario . In Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Multi-sensor , Multisource Information Fusion, Orlando, FL, April 2003.
11.
Kim TG, Lee C., Christensen ER, Zeigler BPSystem Entity Structuring and Model Base Management. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics1990; 20(5): pp. 1013-1024. 12. Zeigler BP, Hammonds P.Modeling and Simulation-Based Data Engineering: Introducing Pragmatics into Ontologies for Net-Centric Information Exchange. New York : Academic Press, 2007 .
12.
Taekyu Kim , Younshin Han , Saehoon Cheon, Zeigler BPNetwork Traffic Analysis System Based on Data Engineering Methodology Using System Entity Structure. In: 2007 International Conference on Convergence Information Technology , Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, November 2007. 14. Taekyu Kim, Chungman Seo, Zeigler BPWeb Based Distributed SES/NZER Using Service Oriented Architecture 2010. SIMULATION: Transactions of The Society for Modeling and Simulation International , 86(3), pp. 155-180. 15. Saehoon Cheon, Doohwan Kim, Zeigler BPSystem Entity Structure for XML Meta Data Modeling; Application to the US Climate Normals. In: IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, Las Vegas, NV, July 2008.
13.
Hojun Lee, Zeigler Bbp.BML Enabled Information Exchange Framework in SES Ontology for C2 . In: GMU- AFCEA Symposium 2009, Lansdowne, VA, May 2009. 17. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), SISO-STD-008-200X , Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML), http://www.sisostds.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=More&article=439&topics=102 . (accessed January 2009).
14.
Carey S., Kleiner M., Hieb M., Brown R.Standardizing Battle Management Language-Facilitating Coalition Interoperability . In: Proceedings of the 2002 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, London, England, June 2002, paper 02E-SIW-005.
15.
Turnitsa C.Battle Management Language: A Triangle with Five Sides. In: 2006 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Huntsville, AL, April 2006 , paper 06S-SIW-016. 20. Kunde D., Tolk A., Schade U., Hieb MRHarmonizing BML Approaches: Grammars and Data Models for a BML Standard. In: 2009 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, March 2009, paper 09S-SIW-046.
16.
Schade U., Hieb MRFormalizing Battle Management Language: A Grammar for Specifying Orders . In: Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop , April 2006, paper 06S-SIW-068.
17.
Sudnikovich WP, Pullen JM, Kleiner MS, Carey SAExtensible Battle Management Language as a Transformation Enabler. SIMULATION: Transactions of The Society for Modeling and Simulation International2004; 80(12): 669-680.
18.
Hieb MR, Schade U.Formalizing Command Intent Through Development of a Command and Control Grammar . In: 12th ICCRTS. Newport, RI, June 2007.
19.
Kruger K., Frey M., Schade U.Battle Management Language: Military Communication with Simulated Forces. In: NATO RTO Modeling and Simulation Group Conference, paper RTO-MP-MSG-056, ftp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTOMP-MSG-056/MP-MSG-056-05.pdf (accessed October 2008).
20.
Schade U., Hieb MRBattle Management Language: A Grammar for Specifying Reports. In: 2007 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Norfolk, VA, March 2007.
21.
Hügelmeyer P., Schade U., Zöller T.Application of BML to Inter-agent Communication in the ITSimBw Simulation Environment. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference , Washington, DC , December 2007.
22.
Schade U., Biermann J., Frey M., Kruger K.From Battle Management Language (BML) to Automatic Information Fusion . In: Proceedings on Information Fusion and Geographic Information Systems. Berlin: Springer , 2007.
23.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, ‘Ontology’, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontology (accessed January 2009).
24.
Kokar MMSituation Awareness: Issues and Challenges. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Fusion , Stockholm, Sweden, July 2004.
25.
Blach E., Plano S.Ontological Issues in Higher Levels of Information Fusion: User Refinement of the Fusion Process. In: Fusion 2003: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, Calrns, Queensland, Australia, July 2003.
26.
Matheus CJUsing Ontology-based Rules for Situation Awareness and Information Fusion . In: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability , Washington, DC, April 2005.
27.
Steinberg ANAn Approach to Threat Assessment. In: 2005 8th International Conference on Information Fusion , Philadelphia, PA, July 2005.
28.
Kokar MM, Maheus CJ, Baclawski K.Ontology-based Situation Awareness. Information Fusion2009; 10(1): 83-98.
29.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), OWL Web Ontology Language, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ (accessed February 2009).
30.
The Rule Markup Initiative, RuleML, http://ruleml.org/ (accessed March 2009).
31.
MIP, Overview of the C2 Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) , 6.1 edn, http://www.e-mapsys.com/C2IEDM-MIP_Overview_20Nov2003.pdf (2003, accessed July, 2009).
32.
Headquarters of Department of the Army; FM 101-51/MCRP 5-2A (Operational Terms and Graphics), http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/101_5_1.pdf (1997, accessed May 2009).
33.
Mip, The Joint C3 Information Exchange Data Model Overview, 3.1b edn http://www.mip-site.org/publicsite/04-Baseline_3.0/JC3IEDM-Joint_C3_Information_Exchange_Data_Model/JC3IEDM-Overview-GBR-DMWG-Edition_3.1b_2007-12-13.pdf (2007 , accessed May 2009).
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), http://www.w3.org/XML (accessed October 2008).
36.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), XML Schema, http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema (accessed November 2008).
37.
W3Schools, DTD, http://www.w3schools.com/DTD/dtd_intro.asp (accessed May 2009).
38.
Arizona Center for Integrative Modeling and Simulation (ACIMS), DEVSJAVA, http://www.acims.arizona.edu/SOFTWARE/software.shtml (accessed July, 2009).
39.
Blasch E.Situation, Impact, and User Refinement. In: Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition XII, Orlando, FL, April 2003.
40.
Johnson WT, Dall IWFrom Kinematics to Symbolics for Situation and Threat Assessment. In: Proceedings of 1999 Information, Decision and Control , Adelaide, Australia, February 1999 .
41.
QingHua X., Yingjie L., FuXian L.Study on Knowledge Processing Techniques in Air Defense Operation Intelligent Aid Decision. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computation Intelligence and Multimedia Applications, Xi’an, China, September 2003.
42.
Zeigler BP, Kim TG, Praehofer H.Theory of Modeling and Simulation, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press, 2000.
