|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SWMU II – Nov 12/13 2001 |
|
Agenda |
|
Attendees |
|
Approach |
|
Outcome – Working Session Results |
|
Joint SWMU/GMUG/EEE Meeting March 25-27, 2002 |
|
Background |
|
Rationale for Joint Meeting |
|
Objectives |
|
Approach/Agenda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 12, 2001 |
|
AM – Introduction for those who had not attended
SWMU-I (June 2001) |
|
Ontologies Introduction, Horus Overview, DAML
Language, Example Demo IT Talks, & Summary of Last Meeting (SWMU-I) |
|
PM – Plenary for all attendees |
|
Update of DAML |
|
Several short DAML demos – BBN, DRC, and LM
AeroText |
|
CoABS Grid Military Users Group (GMUG) overview |
|
Horus update |
|
NWDC updates, |
|
Updates from Breakout groups: |
|
Intelligence (Joe Rockmore) |
|
Doctrine/Lessons Learned (Alice Mulvehill) |
|
C2 Applications (Tom Martin) |
|
Evening Demo session |
|
Wednesday, November 13, 2001 |
|
Intel, Doctrine/LL, and C2 Breakouts and
Outbriefs |
|
|
|
|
Elaine Marsh/NRL |
|
Frank Muller/BBN |
|
Paul Kogut/Lockheed-Martin |
|
Joe Rockmore/Cyladian |
|
Mike Dean/BBN |
|
Rob Rasch/BCBL-L (Army) |
|
Mike Rimmer/NWDC |
|
Mark Gorniak/AFRL |
|
Ken Whitebread/LMSC/ATL |
|
Frank White/SSC |
|
Martha Kahn/Global Infotek |
|
Hal Hultgren/NWDC |
|
Paul Neves/BBN |
|
Lee Lacy/DRC |
|
Tom Martin/RME |
|
Alice Mulvehill/BBN |
|
Wayne Perras/NWDC |
|
|
|
|
|
Charter |
|
How do the ideas of the semantic web
specifically apply to intelligence problems? |
|
What unique problems does the intelligence
community have with respect to using semantic web technology? |
|
How can we leverage the work being done in DAML,
and specifically the applications to intelligence, to other efforts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intelligence needs to talk about what was, is,
and might be (with uncertainty), while C2 plans what to do with resources
available, logistics makes resources available, etc. |
|
Ontologies need to reflect differences in data
and mission |
|
Issues
of interest to intelligence (primary) |
|
Money laundering, geopolitical issues, financial
transactions, non-military organizations, drugs, counter-terrorism, etc. |
|
Imagery, signals, open source, & analysis of
this data |
|
Generally higher levels of abstraction than C2,
etc. |
|
Source info and confidence in source important |
|
Temporal and spatial reasoning important |
|
|
|
|
|
Understand documents enough to know locations in
a document |
|
Placename, lat/lon, BE num, UTM, etc. |
|
Disambiguation |
|
Granularity issues |
|
Understand documents enough to know temporal
aspects in a document |
|
Absolute time in different granularity (date
& time to milliseconds vs. season) and representations (Julian date,
DTG, etc.) |
|
Disambiguation |
|
Relative time (before, after, within,
overlapping, close to, etc.) |
|
Co-reference problems in geolocations and times |
|
|
|
|
|
Consumer-based and producer-based markup tools
needed |
|
Combine automated and manual markup
intelligently |
|
Markup as part of authoring |
|
Culture is analysts (producers) are too busy to
do any additional work, such as markup, unless |
|
Its very easy to do |
|
There is clear value to producers (not just
consumers) |
|
Someone measures them on the quality/quantity of
markup |
|
Mid term:
mixed initiative, where authoring and knowledge object creation are
done in parallel and with either driving the process |
|
A long term view: author knowledge objects from the outset; form products from
these objects, including English text documents |
|
Multilingual opportunities |
|
|
|
|
|
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 (vice
database schemata, which are not sufficiently expressive) |
|
Crawlers of value, but may have access control
issues (open source an exception) |
|
Uncertainty of data (both by source and about
source) |
|
Inference-based retrieval of information |
|
Pedigree critical to maintain (but often raises
the security levels) |
|
Indexing of markup important for speed of access |
|
Timelines for intelligence information. |
|
Can be long, if national |
|
Can be short, if tactical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tie collection, processing, production together |
|
A common markup language will enhance
collection, thus optimizing use of intel resources |
|
Producers and consumers have different ways of
looking at the world; there is 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? |
|
Can we do our collection and analysis at SCI and
report at lower levels (including collateral , coalition, and unclass)? |
|
|
|
|
|
Military and intelligence users that
particularly should hear about semantic web: |
|
DoD elements: DIA (esp JIVA), NSA |
|
Agencies: NRO, NIMA, CIA |
|
Service intel agencies: ISCOM, AFIA, ONI, MCIA |
|
Unified commands: JIC’s and JAC’s |
|
Standards setting and interoperability orgs |
|
How do organizations understand what DAML
products and approaches could help them? |
|
Focused TIE’s with appropriate producers and
consumers around specific value propositions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objectives |
|
Explore Command and Control Applications for
DAML developments, both long and short term |
|
What are ways in which we can best explore the
value of DAML for C2 functions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XML = 10x hard code |
|
DAML = 2x XML |
|
Jini/Java breakpoint |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For ESG, smart agent needed for dynamic
communications management to do reasoning about the network – to support
the smart agent operation, need: |
|
Comms ontology from Operational Level to
Tactical Level (see next slide) |
|
Identify boundaries of sensor nets, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ontology from Operational Level (CJTF) to
tactical level (weapons on target) for supporting modeling of sensor/
communications/ information management needs |
|
Benefits to ESG |
|
Experiment design |
|
System Concept Testing |
|
Once refined, system design, and construction |
|
Ties to many many other needs |
|
Intelligence, Leverage of Doctrine/TTP/Lessons
Learned/Training work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experimentation (General) |
|
For both Communications and Fusion applications,
refine the CoABS Grid DAML interfaces for Utility for |
|
Dynamic Communications |
|
Sensor Management |
|
Sensor Fusion |
|
DAML for Fusion |
|
EEE Experimentation |
|
Explore the Depth of where DAML markup makes the
most sense |
|
Explore Jini/Java (I.e., Grid) object
translation to DAML |
|
Research |
|
Assess DAML tools for the multiple layers from
the physical to the information management |
|
Bandwidth tradeoffs, etc. |
|
Modeling DAML/assessing utility in the mobile
environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new approach to the Agent Based Computing |
|
Outreach to Transition Partners |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vision of Future Warfare |
|
Fit to ESG/Interest of Navy in Agent Based
Computing |
|
Agent-Based and DARPA Fusion Technology Roles |
|
CoABS Grid |
|
Semantic Web/DAML |
|
DDB/DTT |
|
Each Program at a turning point |
|
Changes of the Military Environment |
|
Changes of Management and Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unprecedented Opportunity |
|
Fruition of DARPA Technologies |
|
Role of NWDC in ESG Experimentation |
|
FY 01 Accomplishments with CoABS Grid |
|
Interoperability |
|
Dynamic Reconfigurability |
|
Security |
|
FY 02 Plans |
|
Distributed Multiple “Real” vs. Virtual Sensors |
|
Teaming with JBI and possibly AATD |
|
Fusion efforts – DDB/AIM and DAML |
|
Joint Meeting Rationale |
|
Many of Same Participants for all Three Meetings |
|
Sharing with Those Greatest Stressing the
Technologies |
|
Opportunity Joint Work on Future |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review ESG Enabling Experiment Plans |
|
Expose non-EEE Participants to key use of ABC |
|
NWDC Explore Added Opportunities for Co-evolve
Emerging Technologies with New Concepts and Doctrine |
|
Adjust/Refine EEE Plans Accordingly |
|
A Forum for Sharing Grid and Semantic Web
Experiences |
|
Review of Key Lessons Learned |
|
Challenges, Problems, Work-arounds |
|
Feed Back to Developers and Program Managers |
|
Explore Potential for Key ABC and Fusion
Technologies to Contribute to ESG/JBI in Future |
|
Identify Potential DARPA Initiatives to Address
Unsolved Technology Issues |
|
Result in actionable Plan of Action and
Milestones to meet those objectives above |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joint meeting for all three groups |
|
Sequence |
|
Objectives and Sponsor Views |
|
ONR/NWDC Objectives |
|
DARPA – CoABS, DAML, DDB/AIM |
|
Users Reviews |
|
EEE Plans and Progress, and Grid Lessons Learned |
|
DAML Issues, NWDC Lessons Learned/Doctrine CALL |
|
Horus, AATD, CECOM, AFRL/JBI |
|
Working Groups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Focus Areas |
|
Connectivity, Interoperability, and Security
(SSC and JBI Lead) |
|
Sensors, Fusion, and Representation Using DARPA
Technologies (SSC Lead) |
|
Highlight DARPA Projects CoABS Grid, DAML, and
DDB/AIM |
|
Agents for C2 (NWDC Lead) |
|
Ontologies for Military Use – Representation,
C2, Fusion, Military Lessons Learned, Doctrine, Intelligence (NWDC Lead) |
|
Objectives |
|
Focus – Issues, Problems, Lessons Learned,
Opportunities |
|
Objective, POA&M with with responsibilities,
milestones, and due dates assigned |
|
Interrelated, not stove-piped approaches and
solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes