|
|
|
Transition Breakout Session—Intelligence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Joe Rockmore/Cyladian Technology Consulting |
|
|
|
|
Pamela Arya/NRO |
|
Tim Finan/UMBC |
|
Lee Lacy/DRC |
|
Richard Lee/Logicon |
|
Tom Gower/ONI |
|
David Martin-McCormick/IMO |
|
Bob Neches/USC-ISI |
|
Joe Rockmore/Cyladian Technology Consulting |
|
Al Schuler/Aerospace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consumers = custom products |
|
Producers = get credit for production |
|
“Query mining” |
|
Feedback from missing information, including to
collection management |
|
Feedback on use of marked up data |
|
Hit counts are poor, but easily measured |
|
Can measure demand |
|
Consolidation of data |
|
Publication once, derived products |
|
|
|
|
Understand document enough to know locations
mentioned in a document |
|
Placename, lat/lon, BE num, UTM, etc.
disambiguation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consumer-based markup tool needed soon |
|
Culture = analysts too busy to do any more work,
including markup, unless |
|
Its very easy to do |
|
There is clear value to producers (not
consumers) |
|
Someone measures them on the quality/quantity of
markup |
|
Produce knowledge objects from the outset,
format from these objects, including English text documents |
|
Will only work in limited cases, when reports
are sufficiently structured |
|
Expressibility limitations at odds with
identifying the unusual, which is an important task in intelligence |
|
Make key points as knowledge objects, embellish
with natural language & use embellishment to improve ontologies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tailored push; also pull (“My Intelink”),
including changes of sufficient magnitude |
|
Subscriptions and data descriptions for matching
against subscriptions may be best done using hierarchical ontologies |
|
Crawlers of value, but may have access control
issues |
|
Uncertainty of data (both by source and about
source) |
|
Inference-based retrieval of information |
|
Pedigree critical to maintain |
|
Indexing of markup important for speed of access |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tie collection, processing, production together |
|
A common markup language will enhance
collection, thus optimizing use of intel sources |
|
Producers and consumers have different ways of
looking at the world, not necessarily a mapping between them |
|
Can consumers provide tasking to producers, via
markup of requirements on collection? |
|
Info data needs from UJTL tasks or other
statement of data needs |
|
Will DAML markup allow semantic understanding of
information enough to affect releasability processes? |
|
|
|
|
|
Military and intelligence users, beyond those at
this workshop, that particularly should hear about DAML: |
|
NIMA Agent-Based Initiative |
|
Information consumers (e.g., service ops
centers) |
|
SOCOM |
|
SPACECOM, NIPC (computer network defense) |
|
NCS |
|
Recommendations—How do organizations understand
what DAML products/approaches could help them? |
|
Focused TIE’s with appropriate producers and
consumers around specific value propositions |
|
Organize DAML web site by functionality;
describe capability, maturity, etc.
Make more useful. Also, need
contract approach synopses and status. |
|