DTIC ADA508917: Global Interoperability Using Semantics, Standards, Science and Technology (GIS3T)

0.46 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED
06 MAR 2009 N/A -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Global Interoperability Using Semantics, Standards, Science and
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Technology (GIS3T)
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Jeff Waters (a), Brenda J. Powers (b), Marion G. Ceruti (a)
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
(a) SSC Pacific, 53560 Hull Street, San Diego, CA 92152-5001 (b) NATO REPORT NUMBER
C3 Organization, The Hague, The Netherlands
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The original document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT
Global Interoperability Using Semantics, Standards, Science and Technology is a concept that is
predicated on the assumption that the semantic integration, frameworks and standards that support
information exchange, and advances in science and technology can enable information-systems
interoperability for many diverse users. This paper recommends technologies and approaches for enabling
interoperability across a wide spectrum of political, geographical, and organizational levels, e.g. coalition,
federal, state, tribal, regional, non government, and private. These recommendations represent steps
toward the goal of the Semantic Web, where computers understand information on web sites through
knowledge representations, agents, and ontologies. Published by Elsevier B.V., Computer Standards &
Interfaces 31 (2009) 11581166
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Common operational picture Distributed computer resources Metadata North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Semantic Web
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 10
unclassified unclassified unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Author's personal copy
ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Computer Standards & Interfaces
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csi
Global Interoperability Using Semantics, Standards, Science and Technology (GIS3T)
Jeff Watersa, Brenda J. Powersb, Marion G. Cerutic,⁎
aSpaceandNavalWarfareSystemsCenterPacific,Code53621,53560HullStreet,SanDiego,CA92152-5001,USA
bNATOC3Organization,TheHague,TheNetherlands
cSpaceandNavalWarfareSystemsCenterPacific,Code53624,53560HullStreet,SanDiego,CA92152-5001,USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: “GlobalInteroperabilityUsingSemantics,Standards,ScienceandTechnology”isaconceptthatispredicated
Received10March2008 on the assumption that the semantic integration, frameworks and standards that support information
Receivedinrevisedfom5March2009 exchange,andadvancesinscienceandtechnologycanenableinformation-systemsinteroperabilityformany
Accepted6March2009
diverseusers.Thispaperrecommendstechnologiesandapproachesforenablinginteroperabilityacrossa
Availableonline16March2009
wide spectrum of political, geographical, and organizational levels, e.g. coalition, federal, state, tribal,
regional, non government, and private. These recommendations represent steps toward the goal of the
Keywords:
Commonoperationalpicture SemanticWeb,wherecomputersunderstandinformationonwebsitesthroughknowledgerepresentations,
Distributedcomputerresources agents,andontologies.
Metadata PublishedbyElsevierB.V.
NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)
SemanticWeb
1.Introduction A proactive approach is needed across multiple organizations,
national and multi national, based on a set of simple and clear
“Global Interoperability Using Semantics, Standards, Science and foundingprinciplesforenablingalllevelsofinformationsharing,such
Technology”isaconceptthatispredicatedontheassumptionthatthe as the sharing of data, knowledge, and models. (See, for example,
Semantic Web, standards that support information exchange, and [16].)Althoughnosingle,easysolutionislikelytobeidentified,this
advancesinscienceandtechnologycanenableinformation-systems paperoutlinesasetofexistingtechnologiesandstandardsthatcould
interoperability for many diverse users. This paper explains and beusedasaninitialapproach.Thecallforaworkinggroupandannual
recommends technologies and approaches for enabling interoper- conference is an attempt to move the approach from words into
abilityacrossnet-centricsoftwaresystemsthatspanawidespectrum action. Many of the technologies and standards mentioned in this
of political, geographical, and organizational levels and sector, e.g. paper are well knownwith significant communities of interest, yet
coalition,federal,state,tribal,regional,nongovernment,andprivate. mostinthosecommunitiesmightagreethattheirideasandconcepts
Thepurposeistoshareinformationinacommonoperatingpicture have not been as widely accepted and implemented as they would
across computer systems to predict, detect, and counter terrorist prefer.
threatsglobally.Therecommendationsinthispaperrepresentsteps This paper provides support for their efforts by “connecting the
towardthegoaloftheSemanticWeb,wherecomputersunderstand dots” and recommending the formation of a working group to
informationonwebsitesthroughknowledgerepresentations,agents, encouragetheirsimpleandeasyapplication.Theannualconference
andontologies. is envisioned as a series of tutorials to teach and share practical
Current attempts at knowledge sharing to prevent terrorist insightsandsolutions.Everyparticipantshouldleavewithpractical
incidents are often ineffective, overly complex and too reliant on approachestooverlayontheircurrentorganizationalpracticesaswell
inefficient human-to-human forms of interaction that don't scale. as access to knowledge feeds offered by participants. The GIS3T
Despitetheclarioncallof9/11andtheclearanalysis,recommenda- community would be encouraged to maintain a distributed inter-
tions,andpresidentialdirectiveforinformationsharing,therealityis operability test bed, a virtual set of distributed resources useful for
thatmostorganizationshavedifficultyobtainingusefulinformation developingideas,papers,proposals,prototypes,andpatents.
fromothers.Althoughtheleadershipcoulddomore,therearemany A prime example of a challenge concerning to the GIS3T
challengestoinformationsharingthatarehardtoovercome. community is joint information-systems interoperability. Forexam-
ple, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have paved the way for
morecomprehensiveinformationsystemsintegration[9],particularly
⁎ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:[phone];fax:[phone].
atthesemanticlevel.Thebranchofartificialintelligence thatdeals
E-mailaddresses:[e-mail](J.Waters),
[e-mail](B.J.Powers),[e-mail](M.G.Ceruti). withexpertsystemincludesinferenceengines,knowledgebases,and
0920-5489/$–seefrontmatter.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.
doi:10.1016/j.csi.2009.03.001
Author's personal copy
J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166 1159
theontologiesthatsupportthem.Anotherrelatedbranchofartificial 3.2.Representingaresource
intelligenceinvolvesresearch,design,development,andapplications
of intelligent agents and their interactions. This paper discusses Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simplified subset of
applications of both areas of AI as part of a group of selected Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). In 1998 XML was
technologies,standardsandapproachesdescribedasexamplesofhow adoptedasasignificantWWWtechnology[5].Itsprimarypurposeis
to accomplish the goal based on a set of founding principles. tofacilitatethesharingofdataacrossdifferentinformationsystems,
Applicationsofthetechnologiesdescribedinthispapersupportthe particularly systems connected via the Internet. XML is an open
GIS3Tvision. standardforrepresentingresourcesinatextformatthatcanbeeasy
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines founding forcomputerstounderstandanduse.(See,forexample,[34,35]).
principles of GIS3T. Section 3 covers identifying, representing, and Whereas XML facilitates access to information from different
managingGIS3Tresources,includingstandards.Section4focuseson sources, it does not provide user understanding [5]. It is not as
the relationship to the applications of ontology to information expressiveashigher-levelstandardsthatarebasedonXML,suchas
integration,retrieval,andotherapplications.Section5describesthe the Resource Description Framework (RDF), and Ontology Web
SemanticWebanditsoriginalvision.Section6discussessemantically Language (OWL). All the resources represented in this proposed
enabledwebservices.Section7describestherelationshipofGIS3Tto architecture,willberepresentedinatleastXMLformatandconverted
interoperabilityintheCommonOperatingPicture(COP)andprovides toRDForOWL.IftheresourceisnotservedinRDForOWLformat,
a discussion of coalition COP capabilities, issues and recommenda- then a Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages
tionsonhowsemanticwebtechnologiescanprovideimprovements. (GRDDL)stylesheetshouldbeprovidedtoenabletheconversion.
RDF is a knowledge-representation language used in ontology
2.Foundingprinciples engineering and in general a language used for representing
informationintheWorldWideWeb.Itisintendedforrepresenting
ThefoundingprinciplesofGIS3Tareasfollows: metadata about Web resources, such as the title, author, and
modification date of a Web page. RDF can be conceptualized as a
• The purpose isto fosterglobal interoperabilityandthesharingof datamodelforobjects(resources)andrelationsbetweenthem.RDF
informationfordetectingandpreventingterroristattacks,andfor providesacommonframeworkforexpressingthisinformationsoit
managingemergencyresponsestothem. canbeexchangedbetweenapplicationswithoutlossofmeaning,and
• All participants should be ready to share with other participants, soinferenceenginescanunderstandthem[39].
usefulknowledgemeetingthecriteriabelow.
• Information should be generic, concise, and tiered to be widely 3.3.Managingtheresource
useful.
• Information should be represented in a manner that allows TheInternetisbasedonaResource-OrientedArchitecture(ROA)
computer systems to manage it using AI-related techniques of whereeach“page”isarepresentationofanentity,e.g.Anewsstoryor
inferencingandreasoning. a product. This architecture is called Representation State Transfer
• All participants should launch efforts to represent in an open (REST). The architecture is simple, robust and scalable. The main
standard format the knowledge of local experts and those with features of the architecture are: a) everything is represented as a
extensiveexperienceorinsight.(See,forexample,[36,37].) resource; b) all resources have a unique URL; c) resource state is
• The technologies, approaches, and tools should be decentralized, maintainedontheserver(butnotapplicationstate);andd)Hypertext
open standard and open source enabling participants to manage TransferProtocol(HTTP)methods(POST,GET,PUT,DELETE)areused
their own affairs yet participate efficiently in sharing useful tocreate,retrieve,update,anddelete(CRUD)aresource.
knowledge. Theadvantages of theRESTapproach areitssimplicity,compre-
• Obstacles to participation by any government, organization or hensibility,andscalability.Forexample,anyonewhoknowshowto
individual,regardlessofsizeoughttobeeliminated. typeaURLintoabrowseralsoknowshowtoGETinformationinthis
• An open-source development model should be followed with proposedarchitecture.
consideration for an appropriate governance structure where all Still,theInternetismainlydesignedtobeunderstoodbypeople,
participantsareequal,independentmembers. notcomputersystems.Thus,theSemantic-Webcommunityhasmade
an effort to develop approaches to enable information to be
represented in ways that are usable by computers. Really Simple
3.Resources Syndication(RSS)isasimpleexampleofastepintherightdirection,
where an XML format is used to define the basic components of a
A useful approach to organizing knowledge is to consider each news story (e.g. title, description, author). Microformats are an
“entity” a resource and then to find a simpleway torepresent and approach to adding extra information to html pages to allow
share the resource. This is a particularly powerful approach if an computers to derive meaning for given types of information. The
organizationdecomposesitssystemsintoresources.Thedecomposi- recentW3CGRDDLstandardisawaytobridgethegapbyofferinga
tion can be challenging because it should include not merely the waytorefertoastylesheet(orothermechanism)forconvertingXML
obvious low-level “entities” (e.g. A sensor hit), but also the higher- or XHTML (with microformats) to a form more usable for deriving
level conceptual “entities” (e.g. A “threat”). The knowledge gained meaning,suchasRDF.
through expertise or experience can be useful for ensuring the TheRESTapproachisrecommendedherealongwitharepresenta-
definitionof“entities”orresourcesislimitedanduseful. tionthatenablesallresourcestobeconvertedintoRDForOWL.
3.1.Identifyingaresource 4.Applicationsofontology
Eachresourceshouldhaveauniqueidsothatdifferentsystemscan Ontologiesenablesemanticintegration;anymeaningfulintegra-
refertothesame“entity.”TheWorldWideWebConsortium(W3C) tion must initiate at the ontological level. (See, for example,
[47]hasastandardidentifiercalled“UID,”whichcanbeusedforthis [11,19,26,30–33,38,40,42].) Ontologies specify how data elements
purpose.AURLisaformofaUID,whichalsoconnectstotheresource relate to other data and define relationships between data objects
toarepresentation,sowewilluseaURLasauniqueidentifier. regardlessofhowtheyarenamedindisparatedatabases.Ontologies
Author's personal copy
1160 J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166
candescribeconceptsindifferentdomainsorworldviews.Thesame the meanings of attributes are not always obvious from consulting
conceptcanhavedifferentnamesindifferentdomains.Moreover,the datadictionariesandothermetadata.Termsindatadictionariesoften
samewordcanhavedifferentdefinitionsindifferentdomains. arenotwelldefined.Sometimesthedatafilldoesnotcontainenough
Ontologies are based on concepts defined by subject-matter instancestovalidatethecorrectnessofamatch.Eveninthecaseof
experts.Metadataspecificationsarebasedononeormoreontologies, extensivedata-fillvaluesforbothcandidateattributeswherethedata
which can act as filters to enhance the efficiency of information typeisidentical,theexistenceofcommondatacannotbeguaranteed.
retrieval. In an expert system, an inference engine can interpret However,detectingreliablyafalsemappingbetweenattributesof
ontologicalrelationshipsautomatically,throughitsknowledgebases differentdatabasesiseasierthanprovingthatacorrectmappingsis
thatinstantiateontologicalconcepts.Referentiallyintegrallanguages, valid [21]. This amounts to demonstrating a single disqualifying
suchasRDF,itsschemaimplementation(RDF-S)andOWL,areamong difference(assumingtheattributesrepresentcorrectdatavalues).In
theleadingstandardstosupportmachine-readablecommunicationof anycase,ahumanoperatorultimatelycandecidetoacceptorreject
semanticinformation. the match [21]. This approach has practical applications in schema
Ontology alignments describe the relationship between two mappinganddatabaseintegration.
ontologies.(See,forexample,[19].)Anontologyalignmentbetween
synonymous terms and some additional information, such as posi- 5.SemanticWeb
tionaldataandtypeofobject,canindicatethatthetermsrefertothe
sameobject.Instanceunificationdetermineswhethertwoinstances TheSemanticWebwasenvisionedas“anextensionofthecurrent
in an ontology refer to the same physical object. From a software- Web in which information is given well defined meaning, better
engineeringperspective,instanceunificationinontologiesisimpor- enabling computers and users to work in cooperation” [2,3]. The
tantforinformation-systemsintegrationandinteroperability. SemanticWebisbasedontheideaofhavinginformationontheWeb
Adatamodelisadescriptionoftheentitiesinasystemandhow defined and linked in a way that machines can use it not just for
theyarerepresentedandinterconnected.Eachdatamodelisbasedon display purposes, but for automation, integration, and reuse of
oneormoreontologies,eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly.Forthisreason, informationacrossvariousapplications[47].
any integration between data models must proceed first from the The Semantic Web is about common formats for interchange of
ontologicallevel. informationand,mostimportantly,aboutlanguagefordefininghow
Datamodelscanberepresentedindifferentformats,andaremost the information relates to physical objects. In the Semantic Web,
usefulwheninstantiatedinspecifictablesandrecordsinarelational information itself becomes part of the Web and can be processed
databaseorsomeothertypeofdatabase.Theproposedarchitecturein independently of application, platform, or domain. The design and
thispaperassumesdistributed,decentralizedresources,whichmeans visionforthedevelopmentoftheSemanticWebisalayeredapproach
that a centralized ontology or database design is not appropriate. depictedinFig.1[3].
Distributedontologies,metadata,anddatabaseswillserveamongthe Semantic-Web technologies and concepts have been used in a
informationstoragemechanismsoftheresources.However,distrib- variety of different domains to facilitate information sharing and
uted XML representations that support data models should be retrieval.(See,forexample,[20,26,32,39,41]).
independentoftheunderlyingdatabasedesign. SemanticallyenabledInternet-searchconceptscanbeapplied to
In addition to information-systems integration, ontologies can the acquisition of information from sources such as sensors [36],
support information selection, retrieval, and fusion, including dis- Command and Control (C2) databases, commercial databases and
parate datafromtextaswellasnon-textualsourcessuchas,audio, datalinksfromheterogeneoussystems.
video,andimagery[30].Thisisbecauseinformationretrievalisade Many military “stovepipe” systems present a limited COP, the
factoadhocaggregationbetweentheinformationretrievedbasedon scopeofwhichincludesonlytheirrespectivedomains.Thesesystems
the search criteria and the intended use of that information in an contain valuable information that is not integrated and that other
applicationthatmayalreadyhaveaccumulatedsomedatafromother systems cannot process because they havebeenintegrated only for
sources.Withoutusingontologiestocomparesemanticallyequivalent themostpartatthephysical-networklayer.(See,forexample,[13].)
terms, information selection and retrieval based onlyon keywords Althoughthisisnecessaryandmuchefforthasbeenmadetoconnect
can be an incomplete process that misses terms that are lexically these systems at the network level, this is simply not enough to
distantbutsemanticallyequivalentorcloselyrelated. provide meaningful information sufficient to support situational
This problem can be addressed using a meaning-based index awareness. Each limited COP must be combined into a single-
structure and domain ontologies [30], which could be important in integrated picture and kept up to date in a timely manner to stay
supportofcoalitioninteroperabilitywheretermsforthesameconcept
arelikelytodiffer.
Anotherimportantfunctionincommandandintelligencecenters
ofmilitarycoalitionsistheGeographicInformationSystem(GIS).The
integration of GIS systems can present a significant problem for
coalition interoperability, especially when new members join a
coalition. This is because unique forms of semantic heterogeneity
thatoccurinaGISrequiremultiplematchingapproaches[38].Asis
the case for information retrieval, robust integration of GISs and
interoperabilityofcoalitionGIStoolsdependonontologyalignment.
For example, common concepts can be identified in GIS ontologies
basedonsimilaritycalculationsinvolvingdatatypesfromtheanalysis
ofspecificinstances[38].
Daietal.describetheimportanceofan“invalidationcertificate”as
adecisionaid[21].Thesemanticmatchbetweenattributesofdifferent
databasewastestedandwhenappropriate,aninvalidationcertificate
was issued to the operator [21]. Validity is difficult to demonstrate
reliably. Many attributes have similar but not identical definitions.
Evenwhenattributeshavethesamedatatype,differencesbetween Fig.1.Semanticwebstack.
Author's personal copy
J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166 1161
abreastofbattle-spacedevelopments[14].Inthedomainofmilitary LikeGIS3T,theNNECnext-generationCOPcanberealizedinpart
operations, where dynamic situations require reassessment of the by the application of semantic-web technologies to enhance
current problem, Semantic-Web technologies can provide the war capabilities.
fightercontext-basedinformation,notjustvastamountsofuncorre-
latedandill-defineddata,viaaCOPofthebattlespace[39]. 7.1.COPcapabilities
6.Semanticallyenabledwebservices Tomeetinformationneedsofoperationalcommanders,dataand
servicesavailableinthenetworkmustbecomposedtocreateaCOP.
TheW3Cdefines“WebService”asasoftwaresystemdesignedto The traditional COP is defined [28] as “a single identical display of
support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a net- relevantinformationsharedbymorethanonecommand.”TheCOP
work.ASemanticWebServiceisdescribedasawebservicewithan capabilitycanbedefinedinmoredetail,astheabilitytodisplayona
internalandexternaldescriptioninalanguagethathaswelldefined single screen integrated views of the maritime, air and ground
semantics. Thus, semantics enable web services to describe their pictures,enhancedbyothertacticaldata,suchastheatreplans,assets,
capabilitiesandprocesses.Semanticmarkupofwebservicesenables intelligence and logistics information [23]. The purpose of the COP
machinesanduserstounderstandthem. capability is to provide a comprehensive view of the battle space
The application of semantics to web services can also increase acrossallechelons,therebyenhancingsituationalawarenessandthe
interoperabilityamonginformationsystems,sothateachsystemina decision-making process across the military command-and-control
net-centricenvironmentcan“understand”what'savailable,negotiate spectrum. The COP is a military enterprise-information system
for resources, and execute application logic to obtain the most supportingoperationsthroughoutthecommandstructure[39].
relevant information for situational awareness. Currently, humans COPalsohasbeendefinednotasanyoneinformationsystem,but
have to understand the information that is required to execute a as a tool that integrates various information sources to facilitate
service and to interpret the information that the service returns, collaborativeplanninganddecisionmaking,byprovidingcontextand
whichwastesvaluabletime[39]. acommonrelevantunderstandingofthebattlespacesituationtoall
Abettersolutionisthatofautomatic-Web-servicediscoveryand players within the operational network [39]. The COP is not just a
execution, where intelligent agents would act as brokers to send static display but rather, the essence of the COP is the information
requests for service to appropriate Web services and dispatch dynamic behind it, and the communication and collaboration
specialized services that provide responses back to the agent mechanisms that provide situational awareness. This leads to the
accordingtotherequestedpropertiesandconstraints.Withsemantic discussionofthefirstofseveralCOPissues[39]describedinthenext
markupofservicesattheServiceWebsite,whattheserviceneedsas section.
input to execute and what it provides in return, are described in
computer executable language. Thus, semantic markup of Web 7.2.COPissues
services provides a formal, Application Program Interface (API) for
automatedserviceexecution[39]. 7.2.1. Data fusion and integration of information from heterogeneous
Inautomaticweb-servicecompositionandinteroperation,seman- systems
tic markups can also use agent technology, to support automated
composition and governance of Semantic-Web services. Based on 7.2.1.1. Discussion. Several COPs provide situational awareness to
user-specified mission requirements, agents can identify and select the operational users in their Community Of Interest (COI). The
thoseservicesthatcaninteroperatetoperformsometask,according majority of these COPs obtain and display data from a variety of
toa high-level description of the task's objective. Intelligent agents sources. Integration techniques and products have the difficult
also have been suggested to update the COP to provide efficient missionofreconcilingthedatadifferencesbetweenvarioussystems
situationalawareness[8,15,18,39]. wheneverthosesystemsneedtointeract.Thisisthecasewithrespect
tocommandandcontrolandinformationsystems,whichpresenta
7. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Network Enabled commonoperationalpicturetoprovidesituationalawareness.Efforts
Capabilities(NNEC)COP areunderwaytoaddresstheissuesinvolvedindataintegrationand
fusion.Semantictechnologies,suchasontologyengineeringtocreate
The NATO Network Enabled Capabilities (NNEC) [6] “next- cross-domainunderstandingcansupporttheseefforts.
generation” COP, integrates various information sources tofacilitate The heart of the problem is the reconciliation of both the data
collaborativeplanninganddecisionmakingbyprovidingcontextand syntaxandinformationsemantics.WhenapplyingWebtechnologies
acommonrelevantunderstandingofthebattle-spacesituationtoall totheintegrationprocess,theinitialapplicationofXMLtothedata
players in the operational network [39]. In this context, the enablesuserstounderstandthesyntax.However,annotatingthedata
application of Semantic Web technologies can enhance future COP withXMLfallsshortofprovidinganyassociationofmeaningtothe
capabilities, by providing greater interoperability at the semantic data.Contextawarenessisnecessarytodetermineiftheinformation
level. is relevant to the current situation. Additionally, users still need to
Forexample,intheNNEC,situationalawarenessisparamountand readandinterpretitbeforeanyusefulactionscanbebasedonit.One
theinformationonwhichitdependscanberealisedonlywhendata cannotassumeauniversalmeaningforanykindofinformation,from
canbeaggregatedintoknowledgeinatimelymanner,thusleadingto dataelementstomodels,unlessitishasbeenstandardizedandhas
betterdecisions.Informationonwhichdecisionsandactionscanbe beendefinedinthesamewayforallinformationconsumers.
basediscriticaltosuccessfuloperations.Decisionmakersmustknow
what,when,where,andwhyinformationisneeded[39]. 7.2.1.2. Recommendation. UseRDFtoannotatethedataandmake
Mostimportantly,informationsystemsthatenablearelevantCOP themavailabletocomputersforprocessing.UseOWLtoextendthe
must work not only from shared networks, but also from the RDFsyntaxforontologydevelopmenttospecifydomainknowledge
informationcontainedintheiroperationaldatabases.Dataobtained andrelationships.Useformallogicinsupportofdrawinginferences,
viasensorsandtacticaldatalinksmustbeintegratedatthesemantic andintelligent-agenttechnologytodiscover,interpret,combine,fuse,
level to provide a semantic-interoperability layer for information integrate,andactoninformationfrommultiplesources.Agentsrely
aggregation that can be exploited by end-user web services, and onstructuredsetsofinformationandinferencerulesthatenablethem
intelligentagents[39]. to “understand” the relationship between different data resources.
Author's personal copy
1162 J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166
Agents don't understand information theway humans do, but they with important data are received. Several issues associated with
and the ontology they use can be configured to have enough pedigree metadata have emerged, such as automation, confidence
information to make logical connections, recommendations, and levels, trust, completeness, and what to include in the pedigree
decisions. content[12].Today,maintainingextensivepedigreemetadataistoo
time consuming to do manually, so it is not done. Automation is
7.2.2.Dynamictailoringcapability needed to capture, process, and validate pedigree information [12].
Trustofpedigreeinformationisimportanttocommanderswhomust
7.2.2.1. Discussion. In a highly distributed information environ- usethesedatainthedecisionprocess.Commandersdemandpedigree
ment,asingleCOPdisplaymightremainappropriateiftheinforma- information to assign a trust level to each data-fusion product
tion remains static for periods of time or the distribution of involved in situation and threat assessment. Metadata describing
informationmoveshierarchically.However,asingleidenticaldisplay pedigree need to be available in command and intelligence centres
willcreateitsownproblemswhentheCOPbecomesatypeofreal- together with the data they support. For example, intelligence
time-enterpriseinformationsystemsupportedbyacontinuous-data information is important with respect tothe degree of trust that is
environment. Single identical displays are less useful than displays assignedtothepedigreemetadata.
created dynamically for specific missions and domain views of the
battle space. Collaboration capabilities allow users to tailor COP 7.2.4.2. Recommendation. The certification of pedigree metadata
displays and still maintain common, relevant aspects of the opera- itself must be automated to be useful [12]. For example, software
tionalpicture[29].Areal-timeenvironmentsignificantlyincreasesthe agents are needed that automatically modify derived or processed
COP's value if the user can define and tailor the views dynamically data and their pedigree descriptions when information about the
[29].ThesuccessfulCOPofthefuturewillhaveadynamictailoring source changes. This automation is necessary to achieve referential
capability to support future planning requirements and real-time integrityamongdataandmetadata.OWLcouldbeusedforannotating
operatingrequirements. thepedigreeofmetadatainformationduringontologydevelopment,
suchasthereliabilityofpastperformanceoftheMaritimecommercial
7.2.2.2. Recommendation. To tailor the COP view to one that shippingsources.Agentsthencouldusethisinformationtoselectthe
supportsthecurrentmission,anontologymustbecreatedforthearea best source of information for the given situation based on the
ofinterestandinthedomainofinterest.Intelligentagentscoulduse pedigreemetadata.
this ontology for information discovery via selection of the most
appropriate web service to furnish the detailed information. For 7.2.5.Knowledgemanagement
example,supposeauserwantedaviewofacertainareainwhicha
helicopter would perform a rescue mission. One key element in 7.2.5.1.Discussion. Adefinitionoftheword,knowledge,onwhich
scheduling the mission would be weather forecast. Agents could everyonecanagreemaynotbeavailable[24].Forexample,Davenport
locateavailableweatherservices,searchforvariousrelevantresults, and Prusak define knowledge as “an evolving mix of framed
compare the results, and finally, determine which one was most experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that
reliableand/orusefulforthatregion. providesaframeworkforevaluatingandincorporatingnewideasand
information.”Webster'sdictionary[46]listsmanydefinitionsofthe
7.2.3.Multi-levelsecuritydomainCOP word,knowledge,someofwhichpertaintoinformationsystems.For
exampleknowledgecanbedefinedas“thesumofwhatisknown:the
7.2.3.1.Discussion. Theaggregation,fusion,andintegrationofdata body of truth, information, and principles…” From these and other
across multiple security levels and domains are critical for war definitions [7,16], knowledge clearly results from carefully selected
fighterswhomustmonitor,assess,plan,andexecutemission-critical dataandtheirrelationshipsaggregatedatahigherlevelofcomplexity
operations. Issues and solutions must be identified for a multiple- thansimplyacollectionofdataelements.Knowledgeistheresultof
security-domain COP, to which non-NATO coalition partners, non- insightsandabodyoftruthrequiresfacts,assertions,andstructures
military bodies and public/open sources can contribute data. consisting of multiple data elements, for example, declarative
Coalition partners, non-military bodies and public/open sources statements. Knowledge goes beyond the data level to include a
alsoneedtoaccessdataappropriatetotheiroperationalclassifica- mixtureofconceptsandtherelationshipsbetweendataelements,or
tionlevel. even data sets. Thus, the notion of complexity is a key distinction
betweendataandknowledge[7].
7.2.3.2. Recommendation. Implement Guard-based cross-domain Knowledgemanagementisdirectlyrelatedtoprovidingamean-
solutions to contribute to the mission need, with rule-based ingfulCOP,becauseitisessentialtotimelyaccessofinformationinthe
inspectionandmulti-levelsecurityconnectivitytofacilitatedissemi- contextof the current situation. One type of a knowledgebase is a
nationofarapid,dynamic,andfusedCOP.UseOWLtospecifysecurity stateof information that consists of a collectionof rules, axiomsor
tagsinanontologytoensurethatthesecuritylevelofdataisidentified assertions structured according to an ontology and a knowledge
properly. Use intelligent agents or automated security-policy con- representationthatallowsknowledgetobestoredexplicitly,andfrom
straints to determine access rights. When access rights are deter- which conclusions can be drawn using an inference [7], [16]. A
mined, agents can extract and release appropriately classified knowledgebaseisbasedononeormoreontologiesthatdefinedata
compositedatatomultiplesecuritydomainsbasedonCommunities conceptsandtherelationshipsbetweenthem[16].
ofInterest(COI).
7.2.5.2.Recommendation. Developontologiestocrossreferenceand
7.2.4.Informationassuranceanddatapedigree organize the concepts contained in information across multiple
informationsystemsanddomains.Thiswillpavethewayforintelligent
7.2.4.1.Discussion. Tomakegooddecisionswarfightersmusthave agentstolocateinformationandreasononittodetermineinformation
confidence in the reliability of their information. Data pedigree is thatisrequiredtomeetmission-planningrequirement.
important to users who need to assess the reliability of data [9]. Forexample,largeknowledgebasesoftenhaveaxiomsthatpertain
Although the pedigree of the data is of utmost importance to to many different contexts and subject areas. For information
commanders who need to make decisions on the basis of these comprehension, organization, integration, and maintenance, the
data,thepedigreeinformationoftenisnotavailablewhenmessages knowledge base can be divided into sections that sometimes are
Author's personal copy
J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166 1163
calledmicrotheories,partitions,ordomains.Infact,amicrotheoriesin simplyprovidetheconnectivitythatenablesothersoftwaretobeused
a knowledge base may be detailed enough to constitute models, in toimprovesemanticinteroperability.Evenifsemanticinteroperability
whichcasetheknowledgebasemayserveasaprecursortoamodel couldbeachievedtechnically,inmanycasesitisnotevenattempted
base[16]. [9] because of political and economic obstacles. That not with-
Axiomsthataretruein onedomainmaynotbetruein another standing,interoperabilitycanbeenachievedatthecoarserlevelsof
[16].Forexample,inthedomainofNavyships,nmisaunitthatisused granularity,suchastheplatformandeventhesyntacticlevelinsome
in the measurement of long distances that ships travel. Here nm cases[10].However,ifacommon,integratedland,airandmaritime
means“nauticalmile”whereasinthedomainofmolecularspectro- ontologywereavailabletothejointandcoalitioncommunity,itcould
scopy,nmmeansnanometre,ameasurementofwavelength[18].To supporttheresolutionofsemanticheterogeneityintheCOPsothata
citeanotherexample,inamicrotheoryaboutzoos,elephantsdonot partialsolutioncouldbeachievedconsistentwiththeapplicationof
fly,butinamicrotheoryaboutchildren'sstoriesandfantasies,theydo availableresources.(See,forexample,[17].)
[18].Theapparentcontradictionsareresolvedbytheusenamespaces. Tociteahypotheticalexampleoftheneedforacommonontology
Theaxiomsofonedomainarenotusedtogetherinthesamelineof and semantic interoperability in ajoint environment, an intelligent
reasoningwithaxiomsfromatotallydisjointdomain.Forexample,it agentcouldsendanalerttotheCOPregardingadamaged“bridge.”
is very unlikely that both uses of nm would appear in the same Uponreceivingthealert,anarmycommandermightwantinforma-
application.Evenmore unlikely istheideathatzookeepersshould tion about the materials (e.g. wood, concrete, steel), design (e.g.
ever need to concern themselves with elephants that fly [18]. suspensiontype),andstructuralintegrityofthe“bridge”todetermine
Clustering of similar information in both databases and knowledge whetherornotthebridgecouldsupporttheweightoftanksandother
bases lends itself to better error detection and the resolution of vehiclesinconvoy.
semanticinconsistencies[18]. Incontrast,anavalcommanderwouldwanttoknowwhetherthe
damagewastothe“bridge”ofaship(eitherownshiporanotherin
7.2.6. Data integration and interoperability across joint and NATO thebattlegroup).Ifthe“bridge”wereafixed,landstructuredesigned
coalitionmilitarydomains to support vehicular traffic, the naval commander concept of and
interest in the “bridge” still would differ from those of the army
7.2.6.1. Discussion. The aim of data integration is interoperability commander.Thestructuralintegrityofalandbridgespanning,say,a
[7],andtheaimofinteroperabilityisinteroperation.Akeywordsearch riverwouldstillconcernanavalcommanderwhomaybetaskedto
ontheinternetyieldedoverfourmillionpagesofdefinitionsofthe navigatetheriverduringthecourseofamission.Inthiscase,thenaval
term“interoperability,”includingbutnotlimitedtodefinitionsthat commanderwouldwanttoknowwhetheranypartofthedamaged
pertaintomilitaryinformationsystems.Severalofthemostgermane structure would constitute a hazard tonavigation and whether any
definitionsarediscussedhere[4,25,27,39]. vehicle(notjusttanks)couldpassoverthebridgewithoutcausingit
Forexample,interoperabilitycanbedefinedasthe“abilityoftwo tocollapse.
ormoresystemsorcomponentstoexchangeinformationandtouse With the development of cross-domain ontologies, agents can
the information that has been exchanged” [27]. In communications provide force protection and support to detect, monitor, assess,
systems,interoperabilitycanbedefinedasthe“capabilitytoprovide characterize,correlate,andanalyzeeventsinparticularsituationsof
successful communication between end users across a mixed interest and to and issue warnings about threats. Thus, intelligent
environment of different domains, networks, facilities, equipment, agentsthatmonitorsituationsinthebattlespacetoissuealertscan
etc. from different manufacturers and/or providers” [25]. This useanintegratedjointandcoalitionontologytoclarifywhoshould
definition refers to communication between end users or between receivethesenotifications.
an end user and a service provider [29]. More specifically, data
interoperability can be defined as the ability to reuse data from 7.2.6.2.Recommendation. Useontologyandknowledgeengineering
anotherinformationsystemwithoutanyintermediatetransformation todevelopcross-domainontologiestosupporttheuseofintelligent
and human intervention [39]. This ties in with the definition of agentsintasksdesignedtodiscoverandfuseinformationinatimelier
interoperabilityin[4],whichis“theabilityofasystemoraproductto manner.
workwithothersystemsorproductswithoutspecialeffortonthepart Thus, ontologies are very important to information-systems
of the customer.” In both [25] and [4] theemphasis is on back-end integration.Therefore,informationbases,includingdatabases,knowl-
automation that obviates the need for the user to perform explicit edgebases and modelbases, and the metadatathat describe them,
integrationofdisparatesystems. should be designed to express clearly the ontology or group of
TheUSDOD[22]andNATOdefineinteroperabilityas:1.Theability ontologiesfromwhichtheinformationbasewasderived.
ofsystems,units,orforcestoprovideservicestoandacceptservices
from other systems, units, or forces and to use the services so 7.2.7.Supportforadaptiveplanningandexecution
exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. 2. (DOD
only) The condition achieved among communications-electronics 7.2.7.1.Discussion. TheCOPmustenableadaptiveplanningacross
systems or items of communications-electronics equipment when planninghorizonstoachievecoherent,systemiceffects.Inthefuture
informationor services can be exchanged directlyand satisfactorily complex information systems will assist military planners, by
between them and/or their users. The degree of interoperability anticipating future enemy Courses of Action (COA). A transparent,
shouldbedefinedwhenreferringtospecificcases. tailored, integrated COP supports this anticipatory function. By
Semanticinteroperabilityhasbeendefinedasagreementamong identifyingandgeneratingoptions,anticipatoryplanningcanstream-
separatelydevelopedsystemsaboutthemeaningoftheirexchanged linethedecisioncycle.
data [43]. Semantic Interoperability also has been defined as the
abilityoftwoormorecomputersystemstoexchangeinformationand 7.2.7.2. Recommendation. The emergence of intelligent, agent-
have the meaning of that information accurately and automatically based,adaptivesoftwaregreatlyimprovesmilitarycapabilitiesatthe
interpretedbythereceivingsystem[1]. operationallevelbyprovidingdecisionsupportforbothplanningand
Semanticheterogeneitycannotberesolvedfullyinanyinforma- execution. Agents that continuously monitor the events in the
tion of arbitrary size because a total solution to the problem of operational environment canprovide information for staff planners
semanticintegrationiscomputationallyintractable[13].Thisiswhy to conduct threat analysis, terrain analysis, asset scheduling and
today's networks do not address semantic interoperability; they tracking, route planning, logistical planning, fires coordination,
Author's personal copy
1164 J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166
communications planning, force protection planning, and coordina- and shared in inefficient, time-consuming, and unproductive ways.
tionwithmulti-nationalalliedforces[15]. Forexample,assessmentsmayappearine-mails,briefs,whitepapers,
Continuoussensingofthebattlespace;afundamentalreordering blogs, phone calls, video teleconferences and many other forms.
ofinformationdistribution;and,integratedreasoningareneededto Perhapstheprimarydreadedformofsharingassessmentsis“meet-
supportoperationalusersintheplanningprocesses.Useofadaptive ings.”Theliteratureisrepletewithcomplaintsabouttheinefficiencies
intelligentagentscouldbeemployedtomonitorthebattlespaceto ofthesehuman-to-humanformsofcommunication[44].
support logistics operations. For example, just as the United States Scaling our sharing of assessments to the entire enterprise is
Forest Service makes use of real-time weather data in forest fire problematic. Most traditional forms of communication (meetings,
simulationmodelstoanticipateandplanbyadjustingassets,anagent phonecalls,email)don'tscalewell.Scalingisreallyaboutvisibility.We
couldmonitorreal-timeweatherdataintheareaofoperationsand mustbe“visible”toeachotherbeforewecanshareourassessments.
provide recommendations on the best time for airlift operations or Time is a valuable resource that is squandered indiscriminately,
supplydeliveries. ineffectively,andfrequentlybyusingmosttraditionalformsofsharing
assessments(briefs,meetings).EvenWebLogs(BLOGs),whichscale
8.GIS3Tusecases wellintermsofvisibility,donotscalewithrespecttotime.Thegoalin
sharingassessmentsshouldbetoshareaswidelyaspossible,butas
A Purpose-Centered Design (PCD) approach is recommended. quickly and efficiently as possible. Emphasis should be placed on
This begins with User-Centered Design (UCD) where the users' quicklygettingtothepoint.Mostdecisionmakersdonothavetimefor
activities are analyzed to determine roles and tasks with an eye anythingmorethanthat.Forassessmentstobewidelyusable,they
toward possible improvements and efficiencies. This is similar to must be as generic as possible. No one can be an expert in every
knowledge engineering. Some improvements may be incremental domain. However, the potential to share information should be
andsomemaybetransformational,althoughinitiallywhichiswhich availabletoall.
is not always apparent. From this analysis, prototype systems are Similarly,theassessmentsshouldbetieredtobeuseful.Ingeneral,
designed beginning with low-fidelity (e.g. paper) to high-fidelity the level of the assessment should match the level of the decision
(e.g. software) prototypes to help plan required and desired maker. For example, high-level decision makers need high-level
upgrades. assessments.However,evenahigh-leveldecisionmakermaywantto
Eachprototypeisreviewedwithusersinusabilitystudiestogather “drilldown”andmayrequiretheknowledgeatthelowerleveltobe
feedbackanddeterminetheemergingorchangingrequirements.Each visible in similarly tiered assessments for all the reasons discussed
rapidspiral includesknowledgeengineering,followedbyprototype above(efficient,generic,valuableresource,etc.).
development,followedbyusabilitytesting,allinafewweekstime. GIS3T will look closely at how to represent and manage assess-
The advantage of the approach is that the system develops to the ments. Useful global interoperability may be enhanced most effec-
users'requirements.Oftensystemsthataredesignedanddeveloped tivelyatthevariouslevelsofassessments,sincemanagingandsharing
inthismannerbecomeuniqueandunexpectedwhencomparedtothe assessmentstodayisdoneinefficiently,notwithstandingthefactthat
originalstatedrequirements.Thetrulyuseful“purpose”ofthesystem everyoneusesthemtomakedecision.
is discoveredin this process. When this purpose is understood, the
systemcanbereusedwhereverthatsamepurposeisavaluedgoal. 10.Toolstoimprovecoalitioninteroperability
From this perspective, “UCD” may be a poor choice of words. The
systemisnotdesignedforonlyaspecificgroupofusers.Instead,the GIS3Tisfocusedonopen-standard,open-sourcetoolsthatcanbe
systemisdesignedforapurposethatiselucidatedbytheprocess.The shared freely. No particular set of tools is required; however, some
system can be applied to any group of users who share that same examplesofgoodtoolsaresummarizedbelow.
purpose. AsetofsemantictoolsthatincludesProtégé,JENA,Pellet,andJESS,
PCD is appropriate for achieving interoperability because: a) is needed for representing and using knowledge in open-standard
informationisgatheredtoberepresentedandshared;b)animportant formats(XML,RDF,OWL).Protegeisatoolfordevelopingontologies.
andunmet“purpose”isuncoveredwhichhelpselucidatetheproblem JENAisasoftwarearchitectureformanagingknowledge.Pelletisan
anditssolution;andc)aprototypesystemisdeveloped,whichcanbe inference engine and JESS is a rule engine. Each of these tools
aresourceforothers. representsaclassoftools.Thetoolsrepresentacurrentcapabilitythat
is largely open and that can be used as a foundation for successful
9.Assessments GIS3Tdevelopment.
AtoolcalledNESI,whichisusedfornet-centriccomplianceinthe
Most decision makers rely on the assessments of others, rather DoD,containsanimportantgovernancemodelandguidancestructure
thanonrawdatathatpertaintotheirspecificsituation.Infact,what similartoassessments.Engineersshouldconsiderthistool'sstructure
oftenappeartoadecisionmakeras“raw”dataareactuallysomeone in developing the capability for GIS3T. An example tool used for
else'sassessment.Anassessmentisaperson'sopinionofsomething, managingassessmentsinatiered,efficientwayistheKnowledgeWeb
often based on previous fusion or analysis of that entity or related (Kweb)[45],whichisgoodcandidatetoolforassessmentsharingin
entities,incorporatingtheperson'sexperience,expertise,confidence, GIS3T.
and current knowledge. Perhaps an assessment could also be an Atoolforgeneralizingqueriesbasedonanontologicalmodelcould
expertsystem's“opinion”ofsomething,ifthatsystemwerebasedon providemoreaccurateandcompletesearchresults,aswellasbetter
humanknowledge. interoperability for international coalitions, such as NATO. (See, for
Incertaincontextseveryoneisadecisionmakerinthateveryone example,[30].)
must make certain decisions in completing work assignments. AtoolforGISintegrationbasedonthealgorithmsdescribedin[38]
Everyone relies to one degree or another on the assessments of couldbeparticularlyusefultoNATOformergingGISsacrossawide
others and passes these assessments them along to colleagues, varietyofcountriesandjurisdictions.
supervisors,andotherdecisionmakers.Mostmanagementphiloso-
phies note that people are the "resources" most valuable to an 11.Conclusions
organization.Ifthisistrueandifeveryoneisadecisionmakeronsome
level, the method to represent and share assessments is crucial to GIS3T is a nascent effort to address global interoperability of
success. That not withstanding, often assessments are represented systems for detecting, preventing and managing terror threats.
Author's personal copy
J.Watersetal./ComputerStandards&Interfaces31(2009)1158–1166 1165
The focus is primarily on representing and sharing knowledge [20] M.C.Daconta,L.J.Obrst,K.T.Smith,TheSemanticWeb:Aguidetothefutureof
XML,WebServices,andKnowledgeManagement,WileyPublications,Indianapo-
across joint and coalition communities, including assessments, lis,Indiana,2003,pp.72–75.
using semantic knowledge. The recommended approach is an [21] B.T.Dai,N.Koudas,D.Srivastava,K.Anthony,H.Tung,S.Venkatasubramanian,
open-sourcestyleworkinggroup,tutorialconference,andongoing ValidatingMulticolumnSchemaMatchingsbyType,inProceedingsofthe24th
interoperability test bed. The benefits to participants are shared InternationalConferenceonDataEngineering(ICDE),2008,pp.120–129.
[22] DOD,FederalStandard1037C,inDepartmentofDefenseDictionaryofMilitaryand
knowledge,practicalapproachestoknowledgesharing,andshared AssociatedTermsinsupportofMIL-STD-188.
development. [23] L.Fanti,D.Beach,NATOinitialcommonoperationalpicturecapabilityproject,
ProceedingsofSPIE,BattlespaceDigitizationandNetwork-CentricWarfareII4741,
Acknowledgements August2002,pp.80–89.
[24] P.Goodyear,H.W.Ryan,S.R.Sargent,S.J.Taylor,T.M.Boudreau,Y.S.Arvanitis,R.A.
Chang, J.K. Kaltenmark, N.K. Mullen, S.L. Dove, M.C. Davis, J.C. Clark and C.
The authors thank the Joint Operational Effects Federation, the Mindrum,NetcentricandClient/ServerComputing:APracticalGuide,Chapter29,
NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganizationC4IStandardization&Architecture AndersenConsulting,(AuerbachPublications,CRCPressLLC,BocaRaton,1999)
branch of Allied Command Transformation (ACT), and the Office of 9.1–29.17
[25] P.-Y. Hébert, STF228: user interoperability criteria” – ETSI STF228 leader rom
NavalResearch,andtheDepartmentofHomelandSecurityfortheir
workshop,http://www.anuit.it/conv0312/hebert03a/tsld004.htm,Dec.2003.
supportofthiswork.Theworkdescribedinthispaperwasperformed [26] J.Hendler,DAMLSensorOntology,http://www.mindswap.org/~evren/services/
byU.S.GovernmentemployeesandaNATOCivilianemployeeinthe sensor-jpa.daml,June292004.
[27] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard Computer
courseoftheiremployment.Nocopyrightsubsiststherein.NATOand
Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries, New York,
theU.S.Governmenthaveroyalty-freepermissiontoreproduceallor 1990http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/indexes/glossary/interoperability.html.
partofthecontributionandtoauthorizeotherstodosoforNATOand [28] JointChiefsofStaff,JointPublication(JP)1–02,DepartmentofDefenseDictionary
ofMilitaryandAssociatedTerms,U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,
U.S.Governmentpurposes.
DC,2003.
[29] Joint Warfighting Center (JWC) Pamphlet 5, Operational Implications of the
References CollaborativeInformationEnvironment(CIE),JWC,FortMonroe,VA,June42004.
[30] L.Khan,D.McLeod,E.H.Hovy,Retrievaleffectivenessofanontology-basedmodel
[1] Answers.com, Wikipedia on Semantic Operability, http://www.answers.com/ forinformationselection,VLDBJournal13(1)(2004)71–85.
topic/semantic-interoperability. [31] C.J.Matheus,D.Tribble,M.M.Kokar,M.G.Ceruti,S.C.McGirr,Towardsaformal
[2] T.Berners-Lee,J.Hendler,O.Lassila,Thesemanticweb,ScientificAmerican284(5) pedigreeontologyforlevel-onesensorfusion,Proceedingsofthe10thInterna-
(May2001)34–43. tionalCommandandControlResearchandTechnologySymposium,McLean,VA,
[3] T.Berners-Lee,SemanticWeb–XML2000,WorldWideWebConsortium,http:// 2005.
www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html. [32] D.L.McGuinness,R.Fikes,J.Hendler,L.A.Stein,DAML+OWLanontologylanguage
[4] Bitpipe.com,Recentvendorreportsoninteroperability,http://www.bitpipe.com/ forthesemanticweb,IEEEIntelligentSystems17(5)(Sep./Oct.2002).
tlist/Interoperability.html. [33] D.McGuinness,F.vanHarmelen,OWLwebontologylanguageoverview,http://
[5] T.Bray,J.Paoli,C.M.Sperberg-McQueen,E.Maler,F.Yergeau,ExtensibleMarkup www.w3.org/TR/owl-fetures/2003.
Language(XML)1.0(FourthEdition)–originandgoals,WorldWideWebConsortium, [34] J.D.Neushul,M.G.Ceruti,UsingXMLschemaasavalidationmechanismtoprovide
Oct.,2006. semantic consistency for dependable information exchange, Supplemental
[6] T.Buckman,NATONetworkEnabledCapability(NNEC)FeasibilityStudy,NATO VolumeoftheProceedingsoftheIEEEInternationalConferenceonDependable
Consultation,CommandandControl(C3)Agency,October2005. SystemsandNetworksDSN2004,Florence,Italy,2004,pp.66–67.
[7] M.G. Ceruti, An expanded review of information-system terminology, [35] J.D.Neushul,M.G.Ceruti,SensordataaccessandintegrationusingXMLschemafor
ProceedingsoftheAFCEAFederalDatabaseColloquium'99,SanDiego,Sep. FORCEnet,SpaceandNavalWarfareSystemsCenterSanDiegoBiennialReview
1999,pp.173–191. (Sep.2006)66–71(TD3202).
[8] M.G.Ceruti, Mobile agentsinnetwork-centric warfare,InstituteofElectronics [36] B.L. Niemann, Harmonization of Sensor Standards in Semantic Wikis: Sensor
Information and Communication Engineers Transactions on Communications, StandardsHarmonizationWorkingGroupMeeting,SensorNetworkPilotsforDRM
Tokyo,Japan,E84-B(10),2001,pp.2781–2785. 2.0.(June2007)11,12,34,35,46–49.http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/
[9] M.G.Ceruti,Datamanagementchallengesanddevelopmentformilitaryinforma- 2007-04-25/PMirhaji04252007.ppt.
tionsystems,IEEETransactionsonKnowledgeandDataEngineering(TKDE)15(5) [37] NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)MilitaryAgencyforStandardization
(2003)1059–1068. (MAS),1990,DraftStandardizationAgreementSubject:DisplaySymbologyand
[10] M.G.Ceruti,Informationmanagementchallenges:obstaclesandhindrancesto ColoursforNATOMaritimeUnits,STANAG4420,Edition1,Feb.1990.
successfulinformationmanagement,ConferenceDocumentationofthe2004SMi [38] J. Partyka, N. Alipanah, L. Khan, B. Thuraisingham, S. Shekhar, Content-based
InformationSuperiorityandEnhancedCommunicationsConference,London,May ontologymatchingfor GISdatasets,Proceedingsof the16thACMSIGSPATIAL
2004. InternationalConferenceonAdvancesinGeographicInformationSystems,Irvine,
[11] M.G. Ceruti, Ontology for level-one sensor fusion and knowledge discovery, CA,2008,isbn:978-1-60558-323-5.
Proceedingofthe2004InternationalKnowledgeDiscoveryandOntologyWork- [39] B.J.Powers,SemanticWebTechnologies:KeytoanEnhancedCommonOpera-
shop(KDO2004),Pisa,Italy,Sep.2004,pp.20–24. tionalPicture,TechnicalNote1294,NATOC3Agency,TheHague,Dec.2006.
[12] M.G.Ceruti,A.Ashfelter,R.Brooks,G.Chen,S.Das,G.Raven,M.Sudit,E.Wright, [40] A.Preece,M.Gomez,G.deMel,W.Vasconcelos,D.Sleeman,S.Colley,T.LaPorta,
Pedigreeinformationforenhancedsituationandthreatassessment,inProceed- Anontology-basedapproachtosensormission-assignment,Proceedingsofthe1st
ings of the9thIEEE International ConferenceonInformation Fusion(FUSION AnnualConferenceoftheInternationalTechnologyAlliance(ACITA2007),Sep.
2006),Florence,Italy,July2006,Paper43. 2007, www.usukita.org/files/1569048201.pdf & http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/
[13] M.G.Ceruti,M.N.Kamel,Semanticheterogeneityindatabaseanddatadictionary ~apreece/publications/download/acita2007a.pdf.
integrationforcommandandcontrolsystems,ProceedingsoftheDODDatabase [41] S.L.Reed,D.B.Lenat,MappingontologiesintoCyc,ProceedingsoftheAAAI2002
Colloquium'94,SanDiego,Aug.1994,pp.65–89. ConferenceWorkshoponOntologiesfortheSemanticWeb,Edmonton,Canada,
[14] M.G.Ceruti,J.L.Kaina,Enhancingdependabilityofthebattlefieldsingleintegrated July2002.
picturethroughmetricsformodelingandsimulationoftime-criticalscenarios, [42] D.J.Russomanno,C.R.Kothari,O.A.Thomas,Buildingasensorontology:apractical
ProceedingsoftheIEEE9thInternationalWorkshoponReal-timeDependable approachleveragingISOandOGCmodels,Proceedingsofthe2005International
Systems(WORDS2003F),Capri,Italy,Oct.2003. ConferenceonArtificialIntelligence,ICAI2005,vol.2,CSREAPress,LasVegas,June
[15] M.G.Ceruti,B.J.Powers,IntelligentagentsforFORCEnet:greaterdependabilityin 2005,pp.637–643.
network-centricwarfare,SupplementalVolumeoftheProceedingsoftheIEEE [43] R.Sciore,M.Siegel,A.Rosenthal,Usingsemanticvaluestofacilitateinteroper-
International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks DSN 2004, abilityamongheterogeneousinformationsystems,ACMTransactionsonDatabase
Florence,Italy,2004,pp.46–47. Systems,vol.19(2),June1994,pp.254–290.
[16] M.G.Ceruti,S.H.Rubin,Infodynamics:analogicalanalysisofstatesofmatterand [44] J.B.Spira,D.M.Goldes,Informationoverload:wehavemettheenemyandheisus,
information,InformationSciences177(4)(Feb.2007)969–987. Proceedings of BASEX, March 2007, http://freya.basex.com/web/webdownloads.
[17] M.G. Ceruti,B.M. Thuraisingham,M.N.Kamel, Restricting searchdomainsto nsf/e67dc0f5617d6e9c85256a99005ea0e7/ff7810b594932040852570b9008022ce/
refinedataanalysisinsemantic-conflictidentification,Proceedingsofthe17th $FILE/BasexInformationOverloadWhitePaper.pdf.
AFCEAFederalDatabaseColloquiumandExposition2000,SanDiego,Sep.2000, [45] J.Waters,M.Stelmach,M.Ceruti,Spiralsystemsimplementationmethodology:
pp.211–218. application of the knowledge web and network-centric best practices, World
[18] M. Ceruti, D. Wilcox, B. Powers, Knowledge management for command and Science and Engineering Academy and Society, Transactions on Information
control,Proceedingsofthe9thCommandandControlResearchandTechnology ScienceandApplications2(12)(Dec.2005)2088–2095.
Symposium(CCRTS04),SanDiego,June2004,PaperNo.017. [46] N. Webster, Webster's new universal unabridged dictionary, deluxe, in: J.L.
[19] M.G.Ceruti,D.R.Wilcox,SensorontologyintegrationfortheKnowledgeManage- McKechnie(Ed.),Webster'sNewTwentiethCenturyDictionary,SecondEdition,
ment for Distributed Tracking (KMDT) program, Proceedings of the 11th SimonandSchuster,NewYork,1983.
Command andControlResearchandTechnology Symposium (CCRTS06),San [47] WorldWideWebConsortium,SemanticWebActivity,http://www.w3.org/2001/
DiegoCA,June2006. sw/.