RIEDP Study Group Final Report - Simulation Interoperability
Transcription
RIEDP Study Group Final Report - Simulation Interoperability
SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report SISO-REF-043-2012 Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data and Processes (RIEDP) Study Group FINAL REPORT 08 October 2012 Submitted to: SISO Standards Activities Committee SAC approved: 06 November 2012 EXCOM approved: 13 November 2012 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Copyright © 2012 by the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Inc. P.O. Box 781238 Orlando, FL 32878-1238, USA All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to quote any of the material herein, or to make copies thereof, for noncommercial purposes, as long as the proper attribution is made and this copyright notice is included. All other uses are prohibited without written permission from the SISO Inc. Board of Directors. SISO Inc. Board of Directors P.O. Box 781238 Orlando, FL 32878-1238, USA Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 2 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW .............................................. 5 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.3 BACKGROUND/HISTORY 5 LVC Environment Needs Fall 2009 SIW Special Workshop Harmonization Objective SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF GROUP AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL OVERALL PROGRESS OF GROUP AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL 5 6 7 7 8 2.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................... 8 3.0 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................... 9 4.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................... 9 5.0 STUDY GROUP REPORT .................................................... 10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.6 5.7 STUDY GROUP OFFICERS STUDY GROUP MEMBER LIST TASK DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE TOR PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE TOR SIGNIFICANT RESULTS AND/OR ACHIEVEMENTS Discussion for Significant Result Area 1: STUDY PROCESS Discussion for Significant Result Area 2: RIEDP SG MEETINGS Discussion for Significant Result Area 3: SURVEY Discussion for Significant Result Area 4: RDGPM Discussion for Significant Result Area 5: SOLUTION AREAS SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SISO ACTIONS - THE WAY AHEAD 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 16 26 29 30 APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL / SUPPORTING RESULTS – SURVEY CONDUCTED ....................................................... 31 A.1 A.2 A.2.1 A.2.2 A.2.3 A.2.4 A.3 SURVEY TEMPLATE APPLIED GUIDELINE FOR SURVEY Object Background Guidelines Annex A – Template SUMMARY OF ALL INTERVIEWS Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. 31 37 37 37 39 44 46 Page 3 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.3.1 A.3.2 A.3.3 A.3.4 A.3.5 A.3.6 UK MoD NATO / Mission Land USAF/AFRL US Army / SE Core US Navy (NAVAIR) Complementary information on SE Core 46 46 46 47 48 48 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Different Views of Environmental Representation (Figure Courtesy of CCTT/SEDRIS) .................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 – US DoD Terrain Database Initiatives (Figure Courtesy of US Air Force) .... 6 Figure 3 – SIW Fall 2009 Special Workshop ................................................................... 6 Figure 4 – Harmonization Objective ............................................................................... 7 Figure 5 – Study Process .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 6 – Questionnaire Outlines ................................................................................ 13 Figure 7 – Reference Process Model ............................................................................ 18 Figure 8 – Reference Abstract Data Model................................................................... 20 Figure 9 – Attributions – Case of Linear Classes ........................................................ 21 Figure 10 – Areas of Convergences & Divergences .................................................... 21 Figure 11 – Principle of Attribution Schema ................................................................ 25 Figure 12 – Standardization Areas................................................................................ 27 Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 4 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW 1.1 BACKGROUND/HISTORY This document is the final report of the Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data & Processes Study Group (RIEDP-SG). It summarizes the activity accomplished during the performance period, according to the RIEDP-SG Terms of Reference (TOR), and proposes the scope of a Product Development Group for continuation of this effort. The three sub-sections below provide background of the RIEDP SG with regard to the topics that include: LVC Environment Needs, Fall 2009 SIW Special Workshop and the Harmonization Objective. 1.1.1 LVC Environment Needs The utilization of Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) through Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) simulation applications in a joint and coalition context is growing. This requires consistency of the simulation environment for the various systems, applications, and participants. Visual Database Electronic Maps Mobility Database CGF Database Paper Maps Figure 1 – Different Views of Environmental Representation (Figure Courtesy of CCTT/SEDRIS) Production and reuse of environmental databases is a significant part of the overall M&S development and deployment cost. An environmental database typically may include an integration of terrain, ocean, weather/atmosphere, space, sub-surface, and all related data required for simulation and modeling of entities and sensors. Capitalizing on approaches that reduce the overall cost is an important topic of interest to the broader M&S community. Various levels of standardization that address different aspects of the end-to-end problem exist, and range from international standards to ad hoc approaches. On-going projects in a number of international government programs, as well as initiatives and innovative approaches from industry, continue to contribute to solutions in this area. However, the activities in the community are often fragmented or disjoint, and sometimes do not or cannot leverage existing capabilities, standards, or lessons-learned. In some cases, these are driven by the special Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 5 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report requirements of specific projects or activities. This results in multiple solutions in the community, differing in their scope, breadth, or depth. Figure 2 – US DoD Terrain Database Initiatives (Figure Courtesy of US Air Force) 1.1.2 Fall 2009 SIW Special Workshop A Special Workshop on the Reuse of Environment Data for Simulation: Processes, Standards and Lessons Learned (see Figure 3) was held during the Fall 2009 SIW to inform and discuss with international simulation stakeholders the current state of the art and the varying degrees of requirements in this area. This Special Workshop provided an opportunity for the international community involved with the creation, dissemination, and development of environmental representations and effects databases to discuss existing or emerging approaches, processes, standards, and lessons learned. Figure 3 – SIW Fall 2009 Special Workshop Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 6 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report The presentations at the Special Workshop indicated that simulation data producers use the same high-level process in the generation of their environmental data products. Source Data, regardless of detail or complexity, is used in internal data generation processes to produce one or more final products (usually) specific to a particular set of applications, clients, or systems. However, the data generation processes differ from one producer or integrator to another. These include differences in processing, organizing, and assembling the various source data into a “database” to produce a consistent, corrected, and correlated dataset that becomes the subsequent source and reference from which various target application databases would be derived. Depending on the application and requirements, the degree of data integration and fusion can vary in such databases. 1.1.3 Harmonization Objective These differences in the detailed database generation processes can often complicate data reuse and jeopardize the final interoperability of the target applications. At the same time, these differences usually occur at the highly (user) interactive phase (one of the most costly phases) of the database generation process, making it a candidate for optimization, harmonization and, if possible, standardization, by fostering reuse of existing data. GIS World Initiative A Initiative B Figure 4 – Harmonization Objective Therefore, as shown in figure 4, the objective is the harmonization of environmental data representations and processes at the level immediately following the source data level but before the runtime/propriety level, recognizing that there is a broad range within this band. In addition, it is also a desirable objective to retain the data form (or format) as close to the source data, while at the same time keeping the internal data consistency (intrinsic correlation factor). Added to this is the desire to not introduce specific target application constraints at this level. Those constraints should be addressed separately by each target application during run time. 1.2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF GROUP AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL The large number of attendees at the Special Workshop has shown interest in harmonizing source data and processes. Moreover, through their feedback forms, some of the attendees volunteered to participate in future workshops and/or study groups with the aim of harmonizing, as much as possible, the production approaches to environmental database generation, capitalization, and reuse. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 7 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report The RIEDP-SG met for the first time in Orlando, FL during the Spring 2010 Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW). With a focus on the needs of the Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal communities, the Study Group set a goal to help merge, or at least bring to the table, the various initiatives involved in Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal area. These initiatives include, in the U.S., the Air Force Common Dataset (AFCD), the NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative (NPSI), the Army’s Synthetic Environment Core (SE Core)/Master Data Base (MDB), and the Special Operations Command’s Common Database (CDB). In Europe, in support of the French Air Force community, Sogitec and Thales have undertaken a similar process of harmonization (the French Air Force approach), with principles close to those adopted by the U.S. Air Force Rehearsal Enabling Simulation Technologies (REST) initiative and the U.S. NAVAIR NPSI. The UK MoD and Rheinmetall in Germany have also been working on similar initiatives. To improve the readiness of the multinational forces for coalition operations, there is strong interest for international standardization in this area. One of the key benefits of this Study Group was anticipated to be the establishment and propagation of a common set of terminology for discussing and describing the environmental data and processes. Inputs and considerations from subject matter experts from the U.S. and international M&S communities would provide the opportunity for harmonizing domain terminology. 1.3 OVERALL PROGRESS OF GROUP AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL The Study Group has operated for eighteen months, with the broad goal of evaluating the level of interest and the best approaches for the development and utilization of common representations of environmental data and processes for use in simulation applications. Within that broader context, the Study Group has investigated and focused on environmental data that can be immediately used in Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal applications. Specifically, the focus of this effort has taken into account the U.S. AFCD, NPSI, MDB and CDB development efforts, UK MoD Synthetic Environment (SE), NATO Mission Land, and French Air Force approach processes and data models, with the expectation of achieving improved interoperability and reuse. 2.0 REFERENCES Author’s Name NAVAIR NAVAIR USAF/TSPG Document Title Event Name Date Published Name of Publication “NPSI Schema 2.3: NPSI Standard for Reusable Source Dataset Metadata.” “MPRD 2.1: NPSI Standard for Material Properties Reference Database.” AFCD Common Data Set Version 2.0 N/A 30 Nov ‘07 N/A N/A 30 Sept ‘06 N/A N/A 1 Dec ‘11 N/A Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 8 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 3.0 DEFINITIONS Term Attribution Database Intermediate Level Source data Definition The “attribution” is the assignment of properties to an object class, or an object instance describing the environment. Attributes can be included explicitly by direct attachment to the object or instance, or implicitly by inheriting down a hierarchy tree. Attributes can be simply define by attribute names and their value, or defined by more complex schemas, called attributions rules. An “environmental database” refers to the sets of geospatial data and all related data required for simulation and modeling of entities and sensors. The production of an environmental database starts from source data (see definition below) up to the generation of target application databases, also called runtime databases. Depending of the step in the process, the environmental database can have different types of representation. The “intermediate level” in this document refers to an intermediate step in the production process of the environmental database allowing to optimizing the capitalization of database creation efforts without inducing too many constraints from specific target applications. The source data refers typically the geospatial data used to produce the environmental database. The main categories of source data are the imagery, the elevation and the vector information. The source data are stored and exchanged in source data formats widely used by GIS community. 4.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym AFCD AFRL CCTT CDB DBGS DFDD DMO DTED DTS2 EDCS EDCS FACC FCC GIS LVC MDB NATO NFDD NPSI OF RADM RDGPM Definition U.S. Air Force Common Dataset Air Force Research Laboratory Close Combat Tactical Trainer Special Operations Command’s Common Data Base Database Generation System DGIWG Feature Data Dictionary Distributed Mission Operations Digital Terrain Elevation Data Defense Training & Simulation Services ISO/IEC Environmental Data Coding Specification Environment Data Coding Specification DGIWG Feature and Attribute Coding Catalog Feature Classification Code Geographical Information System Live-Virtual-Constructive SE Core’s Master Data Base North Atlantic Treaty Organization NSG (National System for Geospatial Intelligence) Feature Data Dictionary NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative OpenFlight Reference Abstract Data Model Reference Database Generation Process Model (RDGPM) [made up of a Reference Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 9 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Acronym Definition Process Model (RPM) and a Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM)] U.S. Air Force Rehearsal Enabling Simulation Technologies Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data and Processes Reference Process Model Synthetic Environment Army’s Synthetic Environment Core Spatial Reference Model SEDRIS Transmittal Format Terms of Reference REST RIEDP RPM SE SE Core SRM STF TOR 5.0 STUDY GROUP REPORT 5.1 STUDY GROUP OFFICERS Officer Role Chair Vice Chair Secretary 5.2 Name Jean-Louis Gougeat Steve Stephens Warren Macchi Organization Sogitec Industries AFRL/RHAE (REST PM) Abamis IT Solutions Country France USA USA STUDY GROUP MEMBER LIST Name Bailey, Grant Castaner, Gilbert Cox, Robert (Rob) Foley, Paul Howard, Kerey Kent, Amos Mamaghani, Farid Rind, Christophe Sieverding, Mike 5.3 Organization UK MoD Sogitec Industries PEO STRI (PM CONSIM/SE Core) U.S. DoD Terrain M&S Executive Agent NAWC Training Systems Division AFRL/RHAE (REST DPM) SEDRIS Sogitec Industries AFRL/RHAE (REST SME) Country UK France USA USA USA USA USA France USA TASK DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE TOR The main tasks of the group as originally defined in the TOR are the following: No. 1. 2. Task Title Informal Survey Reference Database Generation Process Model Task Description Conduct an informal survey of the U.S. and international Aircrew Training and Mission rehearsal M&S communities for on-going initiatives that might serve as part of an overall common solution. These included the AFCD, the NPSI, the SE Core / MDB, the CDB, and the related French Air Force approach. Define and document a Reference Database Generation Process Model that may include: a. Establishing a common terminology, b. Identifying common areas in data generation processes between initiatives, Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 10 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report No. Task Title 3. Time and Effort Assessment 4. Final Report 5.4 Task Description c. Identifying requirements for one or more common solutions to foster interoperability and reuse of environmental databases and processes, d. Recommending how to expand the initial focus to cover additional requirements. Assess the time and effort required to develop and deploy one or more common solutions for the interoperability and reuse of environmental databases and processes. Produce a final report on the RIEDP-SG activity. PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE TOR The main products of the group as originally defined in the TOR are as follows. No. Product Title 1. Informal Survey 2. Reference Database Generation Process Model 3. Time and Effort Assessment 4. Final Report 5.5 5.5.1 Product Description An informal survey of the U.S. and international Aircrew Training and Mission rehearsal M&S communities A Reference Database Generation Process Model that establishes a common terminology, identifies common areas in data generation processes between initiatives, identifies requirements for one or more common solutions to foster interoperability and reuse of environmental databases and processes and recommends how to expand the initial focus to cover additional requirements. Time and effort required to develop and deploy one or more common solutions for the interoperability and reuse of environmental databases and processes Final report on the RIEDP-SG activity. SIGNIFICANT RESULTS AND/OR ACHIEVEMENTS Discussion for Significant Result Area 1: STUDY PROCESS Tasks 1 and 2 were undertaken according to the following 8-step process: Dataset provider type Initiative 1 Documentation Initiative 1 Capabilities 6 Initiative 2 Documentation 2 Initiative n Documentation Initiative 2 Capabilities Questionnaire 4 3 5 Reference Database Generation Process Model Data Model Initiative n Capabilities 7 Assessment Database provider type 1 Process Breakdown 8 Areas of Divergence Initiatives (AFCD, NPSI, CDB, SECORE, Fr, NATO, UK) Figure 5 – Study Process Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 11 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Begin from the collection of existing approaches (US and European initiatives) Use existing approaches to develop the survey guidelines or questionnaire Distribute the survey guidelines to all initiatives Use the results of the survey to capture each approach's "capabilities" Extract (factor out) common approach building blocks, as well as unique steps Build a "Reference Database Generation Process Model" (RDGPM) made up of a Reference Process Model (RPM) 1 and a Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM). 7. Evaluate each approach's capabilities against the RDGPM 8. Identify areas of convergence and divergence between initiatives. 5.5.2 Discussion for Significant Result Area 2: RIEDP SG MEETINGS The work was accomplished by a core team, a subset of the participating members, as identified in section above. Periodically, meetings were organized in order to present the current results to the community, to collect responses, reactions, and additional information. These were held in conjunction with international M&S events: • • • • • • • • • Organizational meeting during Spring SIW 2010 in Orlando – Apr ’10; Meeting #2 during ITEC 2010 in London – May ’10; Meeting #3 during Image in Phoenix - July ’10; Meeting #4 during Fall SIW Orlando - Sept ’10; Meeting #5 during I/ITSEC Orlando- November/December ’10; Meeting #6 during Spring SIW Boston- Apr ’11; Meeting #7 during Fall SIW Orlando – Sept ’11; Meeting #8 during I/ITSEC Orlando – November/December ‘11; Meeting #8 during Spring SIW Orlando – Mar ‘12; Web meetings were also conducted between these in-person meetings: • • • • • • • • • 1 Web meeting #1, on November the 19th ‘10 Web meeting #2, on February the 3rd ’11; Web meeting #3, on March the 30th ’11; Web meeting #4 on April the 5th’11; Web meeting #5, on April the 6th’11; Web meeting #6, on June the 6th ’11; Web meeting #7, on September the 2nd ’11 Web meeting #8, on January the 27th ’12 Web meeting #9, on August the 10th‘12 During the Study, we realized that RDGPM, despite its name, needed to be more than a process model. So we added a reference abstract data model (RADM) to the Reference Process Model itself (RPM). The RDGPM will be revised to RDGM when the PDG is initiated to reflect these changes. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 12 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 5.5.3 Discussion for Significant Result Area 3: SURVEY The preparation, execution and exploitation of the informal survey (steps 1 to 4 of the Study Process) are presented in the sections below. Supplemental details for the survey to include the survey template, the survey guidelines and summary of results are provided in Appendix A. Items listed below, supporting the execution of the survey, are described in more detail in the subsections below: • • • • • Survey Guidelines – Questionnaire; Initiatives and POCs; Initial Responses; Clarification actions; Conclusion of the Survey. The results of the analysis in terms of RDGPM and the areas of convergence and divergence are addressed in the following sections. 5.5.3.1 Survey Guidelines – Questionnaire In order to allow each initiative representative to provide valuable / easy-to-use data about the initiative’s process and methods for creating simulation environmental databases and to make sure these data would be comparable to the other initiatives, a Survey Guidelines or Questionnaire was needed. In accordance with steps 1 and 2 of the study process, a preliminary analysis based on the available documentation was performed in order to discern the main trends. The questionnaire was derived and organized as shown in the diagram below. Name NameofofInitiative Initiative Point PointofofContact Contact Data DataRepresentation Representation Process ProcessBreakdown Breakdown Environmental EnvironmentalData Data Source SourceData Data Stages Stagesininthe theprocess process Operation Operation Environmental EnvironmentalRepresentation RepresentationModel Model Spatial Spatialreference referenceframe frame and andtheir theirlocalization localizationininthe theprocess process Target Targetapplications applications Imports/exports Imports/exports and andtheir theirlocalizations localizationsininthe theprocess process Data DataOrganization Organization Software Softwarearchitecture architectureand andtools tools Data DataFormats Formats Metadata Metadata Reference Referencedictionaries dictionaries Glossary Glossary List Listofofdocumentation documentation Data Dataabout aboutthe theEnd EndUser User Further Information Further Information Figure 6 – Questionnaire Outlines The questionnaire was detailed into an Excel spread sheet (See template provided in appendix) and included guidance to help respondents in answering the questions. Additionally, a tentative Process Model (PM) and Data Model (DM) in UML representation were elaborated. The PM was based on the concatenation of the practices of the different initiatives. The DM was based on the characteristics of the level immediately following the source data level but before the runtime/propriety Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 13 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report level, as produced by the Sogitec’s SINDBAD DBGS. These models were then used during the interviews with the intent to consolidate the results into RPM and RADM. 5.5.3.2 Initiatives and POCs The final version of the questionnaire was sent by the end of September 2010 to the points of contact identified for each initiative, as listed in the table below. Initiative AFCD NPSI SE Core CDB French AF approach Organization USAF / AFRL NAVAIR US Army USSOCOM Sogitec/AAF POC Mike Sieverding / Amos Kent Kerey Howard Rob Cox Earl Miller Christophe Rind Additionally, the questionnaire was sent to the following organizations that volunteered to participate after the TOR had been finalized. Initiative UK SE NATO Mission Land German Army Organization MoD NLR Rheinmetall POC Grant Bailey Arjan Lemmers Bodo Randt 5.5.3.3 Initial Answers The answers to the questionnaire were received during November 2010 from the following contributors in the following order: a USAF/AFCD Initiative The AFCD response to the questionnaire was received from USAF according to the schedule. The generation process and the Data Model were described in detail according to the template. Many comments were provided to help understanding. The AFCD process is consistent with the process used as template in terms of stages. However: • AFCD only specifies the first stages of the generic process, leaving the responsibility of producing the final and runtime databases to the end data users (contractors). • AFCD adds the notions of dataset 2 requirements, dataset cataloguing, and dataset validation, which were not included in the template. USAF representatives provided additional information on the AFCD data model. The AFCD approach shares the same principles as the NAVAIR’s NPSI, described in the NPSI Metadata documentation. Attributes and attribution rules need to be clarified. 2 AFCD and NPSI use the notion of dataset to designate a set of environmental data used and/or built by database producers during their database generation process excluding the target application level data that they call a (runtime) database. This includes data resulting from the operations of refinement, reconciliation and possibly integration of source data. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 14 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report b NAVAIR / NPSI Initiative The NPSI response to the questionnaire has not been formally received. However, AFRL indicated that NPSI and AFCD processes share the same principles (confirmed later by NAVAIR), and NPSI documentation was provided by AFRL: • “NPSI Schema 2.3: NPSI Standard for Reusable Source Dataset Metadata.” • “MPRD 2.1: NPSI Standard for Material Properties Reference Database.” c US Army/SE Core/MDB Initiative The SE Core response to the questionnaire was received from US Army according to the schedule. However, the content was very limited due to restrictions being applied during the SE Core bidding and contract renewal process. Similar to the AFCD, the SE Core generation process is consistent with the template, controlling all stages from raw data to run time databases including the notion of the Master Database (MDB) Additional information on SE Core description have been provided and presented in the Appendix. d USSOCOM/CDB Initiative The SOFPREP response to the questionnaire was received from USSOCOM according to the schedule, with limited content, and instead referring to the CDB Specification for details. The CDB process is also consistent with the template, covering all stages from raw data to runtime databases. However, CDB is runtime- oriented, which impacts the data representation model. CBD uses its own attributes dictionary and attribute rules (called Attribution Schema). e French Air Force Approach The French Air Force response (illustrated with Sogitec SINDBAD solution) to the questionnaire was received according to the schedule. The Sogitec process is consistent with the process used as template in terms of stages. Excluding the runtime databases, the Sogitec process is specifically focused on the level immediately following the source data level but before the runtime/propriety level, which is the ultimate common purpose value-added stage before the adaptation of the data to the target applications (publishing). Sogitec uses its own attributes dictionary and attribute rules (see principle in § 5.5.4.4c). f UK SE Initiative The UK SE response to the questionnaire was received from UK MoD according to the schedule. However, the content was very limited due to restrictions being applied during an ongoing bidding process, and the low level of knowledge of their future solution. No information is available on attribution at this time. g NATO “Mission Land” Initiative The NATO “Mission Land” response to the questionnaire was received from NLR, however a former version of the Questionnaire was used. Due to Mission Land being developed as a geo-typical world in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the creation process is slightly different, including a specific stage for geo-typical data creation, and with no attention to correlation with geo-specific data. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 15 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report No information is available on attribution at this time. 5.5.3.4 Interviews of the Initiatives’ representatives Interviews of the initiatives’ representatives were conducted as side-meetings during I/ITSEC 2010. Three interviews (with UK, NATO, and USAF / AFRL) had been planned before the conference; two more were arranged on site with US Army / SE Core and US Navy / NAVAIR. All interviews were held similarly with (1) a summary of the RIEDP-SG study principles / survey status, (2) review and comments on the initiative’s answers to the questionnaire, (3) presentation and comments on the tentative UML model initiated by Sogitec based on their SINDBAD DBGS, with the intent of generalization. A summary of all interviews is provided in the appendix. 5.5.3.5 Conclusion of the Survey As a result of the Survey, it appears that the initiatives use the same core of geospatial source data formats. They also share the same high level database generation process flow with the same stages. It is to be noted that the initiatives do not necessarily control all the stages (for instance, some steps are left to the responsibility of the database provider), which may reduce the capitalization of efforts. The Survey also shows similarities between initiatives when it comes to the data models, which is something that was expected given that the Initiative’s database generation processes heavily rely on COTS products and de-facto or standard formats. However, these data models show some divergences as one goes along the stages of each process, particularly in the use of feature dictionaries, attribute definitions, and the attribution rules. This complicates the reuse between initiatives and even impedes it, if the data models cannot be “interfaced”. Nevertheless, enough commonness can be found so that the definition of a RDGPM, as a reference against which the initiatives could be assessed, may be feasible. 5.5.4 Discussion for Significant Result Area 4: RDGPM A first version of the RDGPM, composed of a RPM and a RADM is described below, along with the assessment of the Initiatives and the resulting identification of convergence/divergence areas. 5.5.4.1 Reference Process Model The RPM has been built based on the tentative PM consolidated with the answers to the survey by each Initiative. The questionnaire was generated from the data available from the initiatives’ documentation, and particularly from NPSI. Though the level of detail of the responses has been different depending on each participating initiative, the tentative PM provided in the questionnaire was agreed to. The PM is composed of the following main stages: • Stage 1 - Source Data Collection • Stage 2 - Source Data Modification/Refinement Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 16 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • • • • • Stage 3 - Source Data Integration/Reconciliation Stage 4 - Content Creation Stage 5 – Publishing Export Other (requirements, catalog and downloading) These stages are each composed of various tasks. Some stages and tasks are optional during the instantiation of the process for a certain application. The red line in the diagram shows the minimum path with the set of mandatory tasks until publishing. The Export stage can be reached from the end of each stage, except from Publishing, which is too specific to the target application and probably not reusable by other target applications. Using the RPM (reference process model), it is useful to note that the most advanced stage at which each initiative makes its data available varies, and currently ranges somewhere between the end of the third stage (in the AFCD case, for example) to the end of the fourth stage (for the SE Core case and the French Air Force approach), or even further to the publishing stage (for the CDB case). Taking maximum advantage of the database creation efforts among the initiatives may require an agreement on an "intermediate level". Such an "intermediate level" may be identified as being at the end of the fourth stage. This is shown in Figure 7. The RADM, presented in § 4.2, is defined at this "intermediate level". Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 17 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Intermediate Level Figure 7 – Reference Process Model Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 18 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 5.5.4.2 Reference Abstract Data Model The RADM has been built based on the tentative DM consolidated with the responses to the survey by each Initiative, and somewhat abstracted where appropriate. This abstraction may be extended for future RADM versions. Displayed as a UML diagram in Figure 8, the RADM is composed of the following main elements: • At the top level, the database is composed of tiles, one Library, and metadata. o A tile contains instances of object classes (areal, linear and point objects) for an area of the world. Note: sizes of tiles are not constrained. o The library contains the object classes (areal, linear and point objects) for the whole database. o Each of the instances is to be linked to one (or more) object class(es) of the library in order to be represented in the simulation. o Additionally, the notion of special areas (Airport, urban areas …) may be separated from the tiles in order to ensure continuity when it is located at the border of two or more tiles. o All of the above may be archived in a repository with cataloguing information based on the database metadata. • Shared between instances and classes is the notion of layer, presented vertically from the left to the right of the diagram : o o o o The elevation, as a grid with metadata, associated to a tile; The features, associated to the tile (for instances) or to the library (for the classes); 3D objects (static or moving) associated to the library; Textures (for 3D objects and features), with metadata, associated to the library; • The attributions displayed at the bottom of the diagram (in Figure 8), complements the description of the features (instances and classes). Among the attributions, the “rendering attributes” are linked to the textures. o The attributions are detailed in sub-diagrams for each case. As an example, the case linear class is displayed in the diagram in Figure 9, together with the application for the profile of a linear object (typically a road). Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 19 of 30 GRID -hooked to Elevation MetaData 1 1 Elevation Data Elevation 1 Spatial Ref 1 1 1 0..1 1 1 1 1 Tile Lin Attrib 0..* 0..* Are Attrib 0..1 Linear Instance Feature Instances 0..* {OR} 1..* 1 0..* 0..1 Pt Attrib -with attributes Point Instance 1 Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. 1 or possibly more Rendering Attribute 1..* 1 1 Library 1..* 1 0..* Point Classe 0..1 0..* Additional Attributes for rendering -is Attrib_Render 0..1 1..* Pt Class Attrib Lin Class Attrib 1 Visual Attrib only refers to 1 record 0..* 0..* 1..* 0..1 Links between OF components and Texture files * 0..* Terrain Imagery Light Map Text. 0..* 0..* 0..* 1 To support Texture comutation 1 0..* Effect Text. {OR} 1 0..* Generic Terrain Txt 1 Feature Textures JPEG, ... Texture MetaData 3D Model Texture 1 Texture Classes Catalog 1 or more texture of 1 kind only Mov Object 0..* 3D Object Attrib 3D Object 0..* Metadata Static Object -to file 0..* * 1 0..1 Linear Classe Feature Classes 1..* 1 0..1 Rendering Attrib Commonality between Areal and Lin Are Class Attrib 0..* 0..1 Areal Classe Link between Instance and Library Class Urban area Airport 1 DB Objects separated from the Tiles 1 * -is connected to library class 0..* Special Areas Feature Instances belong to Tile OR to Special Areas 1 0..1 Areal Instance 1 1..* 1 -is 3D Obj 0..* 0..1 Repository 0..* 0..* SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report -is Attrib_Render 0..1 Figure 8 – Reference Abstract Data Model Page 20 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report SINDBAD::Linear Classe Z 1 1 profile per Linear Object Except Light string X 0 0..1 Linear Class Param Linear Profile 1 0..* 1..* 1 or more sections to allow different rendering at section Level Linear Class Attributes -Defines 1..* Rendering Attributes for the Profile Section profile for Linear Object 1 Linear Section 3D View Expansed Linear Object 1 0..* Description of each Section + Rendering Attribute for the Section 1..* 0..* * Vertex SINDBAD::Rendering Attrib -X, Y=0, Z Figure 9 – Attributions – Case of Linear Classes 5.5.4.3 Convergences and Divergences The initiatives have been assessed (step 7 and 8) against the RDGPM, and main areas of convergence and divergence have been identified. They are shown on the figure below, with the following items: Many areas of Convergence DB GIS Format Tiles Layers, Tiles Tile (X – Y) LOD … Elevation DTED, … Features Point instances Shape files Linear instances Airport Features Aerial instances OF, Shape Imagery Rules TIF, … ? Other Layers Indirect to Library ? Libraries Library Aerial classes Linear classes Point classes Classes Xml ? Many areas of Variability Mapping Table Feature-Attribution Relationships – Attribution Dictionaries Attributes ? Direct to Library Object indirect indirect ? Naming conventions, Standard Options, Rules Textures JPEG,.. Objects OF Static Moving Figure 10 – Areas of Convergences & Divergences • The convergence areas (in purple) : o Source data formats: All Initiatives use GIS technology and associated formats, which fosters natural convergence of all initiatives based on source data. However, using the same source data formats may not be sufficient to allow a full convergence. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 21 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • Using raster formats like DTED, GeoTiff, JPEG2K can be enough for having a rather good convergence. Moreover, conversion tools exist between all these formats. • Using Shapefiles format with its user-defined attribution schema can lead to divergence. This aspect fits in with the attribution issue discussed below. • Additionally, use of GIS formats implies taking into account evolution of the GIS domain. o Layers: Also derived from the GIS community (consistent with the source data formats) and applied to simulation, the basic layers (elevation, features, texture, 3D objects) are commonly shared, with similar formats amongst the initiatives. But what is in the layers, at what detail, at what resolution may be different to take into account specific purposes and it must be looked at closely. o Tiles: Source data are often delivered by producers using regular tiles. Additionally the DB generation process can often use parallel processing, which also leads to cutting the domain into regular tiles. Similarly, preparing the data for use during runtime may require the use of tiles. Despite the use of the general tiling concept, there is a great variety of requirements among the initiatives, from the “no specific tile size” (AFCD approach) to the CDB fully defined tile schema. Considering that tiles can be adjusted at any time using the GIS tools capabilities, this is not a main technical issue. However, these adjustments have a cost and should be minimized. • The divergence areas (in yellow): o Internal format: Relying on the use of layers with their relevant source data formats, a desired “integrated database” is the state of aggregation of the data from the layers, which presents a significant added value in terms of reusability (because of operator work) while keeping away from what is specific to the target applications. Setting aside the distortion corrections (e.g. alignment of elevation data with feature data), which are now often performed by the source data providers, there is the definition of library of object classes and the linkage of these with the object instances. Depending on the initiative, the notion of “integrated database” may or may not make sense. For instance, AFCD’s scope does not cover this notion, leaving it to the responsibility of the simulation database provider (who receives the AFCD data). At the opposite end, SE Core, CDB, and French Air Force initiatives have “integrated databases”, but with significant differences in their internal formats, which reduces the reusability of the database and impacts the correlation of the database generation results at the target application level. o Attribution: Environmental data is often/ generally derived from GIS data, with specific simulation requirements integrated via a set of attributes associated with various features. Attributes and attribution rules (governing how such features and components may be attributed) are different among the initiatives. o Dictionary: Dictionaries contain the terms, labels, and concepts that allow the data providers to designate and/or describe the features and components of the environment and their attributes. Iinitiatives do not use the same dictionaries. Utilization of attribution and dictionary are an important source of discrepancies between initiatives. The subject is addressed in the section below. 5.5.4.4 Focus on dictionary and attribution issues a Introduction The notions of attribution and dictionary are sometimes confused, as the terms and concepts from a dictionary are equated to the instances of those concepts in a specific data model. Furthermore, the concepts (features and attributes) and the attribution rules of the various initiatives often use terms or concepts that are Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 22 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report not covered by the various standard dictionaries, and each initiative defines a specific dictionary for their purposes. b Dictionaries and Mapping Several standard dictionaries of terms and concepts are widely used currently (or will be used in the future) by the various initiatives and programs. Among them: • • • • The DGIWG Feature and Attribute Coding Catalog (FACC), The ISO/IEC Environmental Data Coding Specification (EDCS), The DGIWG Feature Data Dictionary (DFDD), The NSG (National System for Geospatial Intelligence) Feature Data Dictionary (NFDD). To allow unambiguous exchange of environmental data between initiatives and the various programs that use the initiatives’ data, mapping efforts will be necessary. Other projects have undertaken mapping efforts to provide authoritative mappings between various standard dictionaries. Though it may appear tedious in the absolute due to the high number of concepts that must be handled, the problem can be considered relatively simpler, given the common practices in the panel of initiatives involved; and hence the limited number of items to be considered with regard to those in the dictionaries. However, this mapping principle may not suffice with regards to attribution rules associated to specific modeling of the environment, as the complexity from semantics remains. For example, an attribute may: • Be relevant to different entity types (for instance point, linear or areal features) and/or; • Be used at different abstraction levels of the data model (for instance Feature Class level or Feature Instance level) and/or; • Have different ranges of values and/or; • Refer to a sub-model, more or less complex, allowing flexibility in the extension of the data model. To understand the complexity of the mapping problem, the nature of the attributes and attribution rules must be understood. The principles of CDB and French Air Force initiative respective attribution schemas are presented below. c Principles of the attribution schemas used by CDB and FAF Initiative Both initiatives use a similar approach to define their attribution rules. Attributes are associated to Geospatial entities as point, linear or areal features. A set of attributes is associated to each type of feature, with attribution rules defining: • • • What types of attribute can be or have to be defined for what features instances or classes, For each attribute, what type and range of values can be assigned, whether or not any default value is included, and whether the attribute is optional or not, For certain attributes, reference to other attribution rules to complement the feature’s description, implemented as tables (or lists), or via a more complex schema. Several categories of attributes may be identified: • The first category concerns attributes corresponding to the real world’s characteristics of the feature, generally supplied with the source data; for example: Feature Classification Code (FCC), the height of the feature, the type of roof for a building. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 23 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • The second category concerns attributes manually or automatically produced during the generation process of the database, for the following purposes: o to overload attributes from the first category to obtain a more detailed modeling of certain characteristics of the environment; for example, sub-classification of materials of a component, o to create a link to a more comprehensive description of the feature; for example: • The name assigned to a point feature allowing reference by its name to a 3D object model described in an OpenFlight data file, • The name of a light point type assigned to a point feature allowing reference by its name to a detailed description (parameters, tables of values) with physical characteristics of the light source, o to allocate to the feature additional characteristics, determining further operations either in a subsequent step of the database generation process or within the target applications during runtime: • Further operations in the database generation process: can involve the generation of the surfaces corresponding to the profile of a road applied to a linear road feature, or the planting of trees (with a given density) within an areal feature or along a linear feature. • To some extent these kinds of attributes can equate to an entry point to a procedural operation (algorithms) used for the automatic generation of database content. These procedural operations sometimes referred to as “procedural generation”, can be realized either during the publishing step of the process or during runtime. The divergence in the performance of the procedural operations between the various initiatives may lead to differences in the representation of the environment, entailing a lower interoperability level between the applications. • Further operations by the target application: the computation of the rendering characteristics of the surfaces. The texture type to be applied by the visual systems is an example of this type of operation. • The third category concerns structural attributes allowing managing the underlying data model associated with attribution rules, and particularly the extension mechanism of the attribute rules. As an example in this last category, Figure 11 shows an overview of the attribution schema of both initiatives in a case of linear features. Two levels of attribution are defined: o Attributes related to feature instances in the database, o Attributes related to feature classes from the library (for example, for linear features such as road, highway, street, etc.), which are then inherited by the feature instances. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 24 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Figure 11 – Principle of Attribution Schema For each row of the feature instance records table, a set of attributes are defined in the feature instance level attributes table, containing values or names. One of the attributes can contain a class name pointing to group attributes or attribution rules specific to that class (for example runway, taxiway, road 2 lanes, etc.). The Class Name can act as the key to access the class level attributes or attribution rules description in a library (shown by link 1). At the instance level, the feature instance attributes list can be extended to define complementary attributes or attribution rules, to describe more complex data such as material model or light point model for example (shown by link 2). In a similar way, feature class attributes or attribution rules can be also extended to associate more extensive description to a feature class, such as a type of texture to be used for visual rendering, or the shape of the profile for a road (shown by link 3). d Conclusion on Attribution and Dictionary Issues The example above describes the principles of attribution rules associated with the RADM. It shows that the notion of attribution involves the concept of a data model, which is much more complex than a simple list of attributes with their associated values. While comparing the data models adopted by each initiative, the attributes and/or the attribution rules appear as the most significant divergence area. In addition to the convergence of the source data, where a consensus seems to be established (primary layers and their formats), the harmonization of the environmental databases and their associated creation processes requires finding a consensus on attributes and attribution rules. Two tasks are needed for this harmonization: Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 25 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • The easier one: identification of a common list of features and attributes (concept, range of values, application domain), using standard dictionaries, to be associated to the environmental objects (classes and instances); • The harder one: identification and definition of common attribution rules. The second task is harder than the first, but both of these are probably the most important work packages that could be addressed within a Product Development Group (PDG). 5.5.5 Discussion for Significant Result Area 5: SOLUTION AREAS 5.5.5.1 Standard solution areas With the Reference Process Model being satisfactorily shared by all initiatives, the notion of a standard solution area will include improvements to the RADM so as to increase its common factors with each initiative’s Process Model. Note: The idea is not to define a solution that all initiatives must comply with, but rather to define a reference implementation and/or model against which each initiative can position itself, contributing to make lossless conversions possible between all initiatives via this reference. The mapping of the “Areas of convergence and divergence” (from Figure 10) onto the RADM (as presented in Figure 8) is displayed in Figure 12 below, with the following results: • The upper part of the RADM (highlighted in solid purple) means that all initiatives may share (even though the RADM may not cover all cases) a similar view of the high level concepts of a database: o The database is composed of geo-referenced tiles containing a set of layers: elevation, features, object, texture … o Feature instances of the real world are attached to tiles, and their rendering characteristics (visual, behavior …), and are provided by the objects (and their attributes) from the library to which they are linked. • The middle part of the RADM (highlighted in dashed purple) may also be shared by all initiatives, as it is supported by their use of common GIS and other formats as for instance: o o o o DTED, GeoTIFF, … for elevation; Shapefiles for features; OpenFlight for 3D objects; JPEG2K, GeoTIFF … for textures. • The lower part of the RADM (highlighted in yellow) corresponds to the attribution aspect which is often user-defined and not constrained by the formats. As a consequence, this is an area of divergence between initiatives. • Miscellaneous: other possible areas of divergence have been identified (yellow areas): o The Special areas, including for example airports and urban areas, that may be described either as features not related to tiles, or as OpenFlight or other format objects; o The linkage between the objects of the Library and the Features; Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 26 of 30 GRID -hooked to Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Shape Files 1 1 Tile {OR} Lin Attrib 0..* 0..* Are Attrib 0..1 Linear Instance 0..1 1..* 1 0..* 0..1 Pt Attrib -with attributes Point Instance 1 1 1 or possibly more Rendering Attribute 1..* 1 1 Library 1..* 0..* Point Classe 0..1 0..* Additional Attributes for rendering 1..* Pt Class Attrib Lin Class Attrib 1 Visual Attrib only refers to 1 record 0..* 0..* 1..* 0..1 Links between OF components and Texture files * 0..* Terrain Imagery Light Map Text. 0..* 0..* Catalog 1 or more texture of 1 kind only Mov Object 0..* 3D Object Attrib 3D Object 0..* Metadata Static Object OF -to file 0..* * 1 0..1 Linear Classe Feature Classes 1..* 1 Rendering Attrib Commonality between Areal and Lin Are Class Attrib 0..* 0..1 Areal Classe Link between Instance and Library Class Urban area Airport Objects separated from the Tiles 1 -is connected to library class 0..* Special Areas Feature Instances belong to Tile OR to Special Areas 1 Feature Instances 0..* Feature Layer Areal Instance 1 1..* DB 0..1 Variability 1 0..1 1 1 -is Attrib_Render Common Format 1 1 * 0..1 Convergence DTED Elevation MetaData 1 1 Elevation Data Elevation 1 Elevation Layer Spatial Ref 1 Object Layer 1 -is 3D Obj 0..* 0..1 Repository 0..* Texture Layer 1 To support Texture comutation 1 0..* Effect Text. {OR} 1 0..* Generic Terrain Txt 1 Feature Textures JPEG, ... Texture MetaData 3D Model Texture 1 Texture Classes 0..* 0..* SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report o Metadata associated to the database, which eventually feeds the catalog associated to the repository. -is Attrib_Render 0..1 Figure 12 – Standardization Areas Page 27 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report 5.5.5.2 Work areas and Products Based on these results, standardization efforts are needed in the following areas: data model, formats, attribution and “miscellaneous” (including metadata). This will be divided along two work areas, leading to two products: • The Environmental Data Model Foundations product with: o The upper part of the RADM with the principles of the database including the notions of Tiles, Layers, Library, ... o The middle part of the RADM with a set of common layers and associated data formats, for example, but not limited to: 1. Elevation; 2. Features; 3. 3D models; 4. Texture / Imagery. o An (optional) tiling scheme to facilitate reuse. • The Environmental Detailed Features description product with the definition and implementation of the lower part of the RADM, taking into account: o Objects: Identification of object instances and classes (such as features, 3D objects, textures) within the Library, and the linkage 3 between instances and classes; o Dictionary: choice of semantics and mapping with existing dictionaries; o Attribution: two tasks are needed in this area: 1. Identification of a common list of features and attributes (concept, range of values, application domain), based on the dictionary, to be associated to the environmental objects (classes and instances); 2. Identification and definition of common attribution rules. Some of the miscellaneous issues will be looked at as needed in the above tasks (Links for instance). For metadata, the work performed by NPSI 4 and shared by NPSI will be referred to. Note: This needs to remain open to technological evolution in the next 5 years. 5.5.5.3 Time & Effort Required The two products will be developed simultaneously according to the following schedule. Depending on the rate of progress in the development of the products and their interdependencies, the first product may be balloted first. The following schedule also takes into account the elaboration of the compliance testing process. 3 4 Other layers (elevation, imagery) being correlated by georeferencing via GIS tools NPSI Schema 2.3: NPSI Standard for Reusable Source Dataset Metadata Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 28 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Milestone Date(s) Activity(s) Description Q1 & Q2 year 1 Q3 & Q4 year 1 Q1 & Q2 year 2 Q3 & Q4 year 2 Q1 & Q2 year 3 Draft of the standard products by a core team Comment/resolution cycle 1 Draft/comment/resolution cycle 2 Draft/comment/resolution cycle 3 Balloting & finalization A participating organization may need to allocate one and a third man x year of effort. 5.5.5.4 Recommendation for future extensions The approach has been deliberately focused on Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal to foster convergence in that community and create a reference point to help aggregate other communities in the future. Given the LVC requirements, we will need to take into account: • Other requirements: ground maneuver related, urban areas, buildings; • Advancing Technology: new formats (e.g., CityGML), … Yet, the selected approach is extremely flexible because of the following characteristics: • Extensibility of layers and formats; • Translation of attributions and mapping of dictionaries; • Extensibility of attributions and dictionaries. The standard products will be extended by involving the interested customers in the Product Support Group (PSG) that will be set up by the end of the PDG to maintain these standard products. 5.6 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FINDINGS No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Finding Description Survey shows that main DBGS initiative worldwide use the same core of geospatial source data formats, and same high level DBG process flow. This can be modeled by a Reference Database Generation Process Model (RDGPM). A RDGPM, composed of a Reference Process Model and a Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM) has been drafted during the RIEDP SG. The initiatives have been assessed against this RDGPM: areas of convergence and divergence have been identified. Utilization of attribution and dictionary are an important source of discrepancies between them. Based on these results, standardization efforts are needed in the two work areas, leading to two products : The Environmental Data Model Foundations and the Environmental Detailed Features Description The Environmental Data Model Foundations product is composed of two (tightly coupled) parts, the Reference Process Model (RPM) and the Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM). These form the foundations for existing and/or emerging database generation projects to compare, contrast, and map their data generation process and data model capabilities to these models. In this regard, use of the Environmental Data Model Foundations will serve as a Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 29 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report No. 6. 5.7 Finding Description guide in establishing database generation process models and their corresponding data models within the community, and will improve the reuse and interoperability of data products. In addition, the Environmental Data Model Foundations may aid in the development of the Environmental Detailed Features Description product. The Environmental Detailed Features Description product will provide the required information for identifying instances and/or classes of environmental features and objects that, along with their specific attributes, value ranges, and metadata, will be utilized in environmental data products. The use of the Environmental Detailed Features Description as a standard product will ensure data interoperability through the identification of features, their definitions (through the use of standardized dictionaries), their corresponding attributes, and any associated metadata. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SISO ACTIONS - THE WAY AHEAD This Final Report is the formal product produced by the SG. It summarizes the work achieved by the core team during the SG performance period, from April 2010 to September 2012. No. 1. 2. Recommendation Draft a Product Nomination and submit to SAC for approval. Recommended Products (two) for PDG Product Nomination includes: • The Environmental Data Model Foundations product, which will be a SISO Guidance document, and will include the formalization of a Reference Process Model (RPM) and a Reference Abstract Data Model (RADM), both of which were addressed by the RIEDP SG; • The Environmental Detailed Features Description product, which will be a SISO Standard product, and will improve reuse and interoperability between participating initiatives identified within the RIEDP SG. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 30 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report APPENDIX A A.1 SUPPLEMENTAL / SUPPORTING RESULTS – SURVEY CONDUCTED SURVEY TEMPLATE APPLIED Name of Initiative: Point of Contact: Environmental Data Name : Organization : Please provide description of environmental data used in your process. Elevation, Planimetry (Features, Vector,...), Imagery, 3D Models, Light Points Material, Pictures (textures) Light Maps Shadow Maps Urban Areas, Building interiors, Networks (road, hydrographic, rail, power line,...) Airports, Navigation data Atmospheric elements Coastlines, Oceanographic data (tide, bathymetry) Other Source Data Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No ? Comments and description ? Please provide List of the various stages of your process. Source Data Collection Source Data Modification/refinement Source Integration/Reconciliation Content Generation Publishing Export Other Operations (and their localization in the process) Comments and description Among the Environmental Data you have identified above, what are those that you consider as Source data (provided by an external entity: NGA,…) ? Among the Environmental Data you have identified above, what are those that you consider as Source data (provided by an external entity: NGA, ….) ? Stages in the process Email : Comments and description Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No - Please provide description of the operations in each stage of your process. Comments and description Source Data Collection Management (Identifying, Obtaining, Cataloging) Import Yes or No Yes or No Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 31 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Conversion Preferred representation for elevation in the process Preferred representation for vector in the process Preferred representation for imagery in the process Yes or No Projection change Yes or No Preferred reference frame and datum for source data in the process Tiling Other Yes or No Source Data Modification/Refinement Changes to Elevation data Merge & Feathering Elevation data editing and correction Smoothening of sampling noise found within DTED grid posts Adding peaks, pits, ridgelines, and valleys that fall outside of the DTED precisions and grid structure Other Changes to Vector data Reclassification Other Changes to Imagery data Orthorectification Image-rectification Geopositioning Contrast and Color Balancing Colorization Image merge Mosaicing Feathering Other Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Source Integration/Reconciliation Changes to Vector data Aligning Features with Imagery Features and Elevation alignment Aligning Features with other Features Changes to Elevation data Flattening the terrain for lakes and airfields Correlating terrain to rivers Incorporating cut and fill for roads Other Changes to Imagery data Examples? Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Content Generation Data creation specific for Geotypical database development Elevation Yes or No Yes or No Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 32 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Vector Creation and Mapping of texture 3D Models Creation or Modification Geometry Creation and Mapping of texture Attribution LOD generation Light Features modeling Models to Features Assignment Features expansion Contour smoothing Object instantiation (vegetation, manmade features) Networks generation Build-up areas Airports Light systems Extrusion operations (tunnels,..) Procedural generation Operations on material Material classification Material Encoding Other Attribution (physical characteristics, illumination model, trafficability, etc) Other Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No what for? Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Publishing Structuring (Layers, Tiles, LODs, ...) LODs generation (terrain and textures) Polygonization and Terrain generation (TIN, regular grid, constrained terrain mesh, coastline pinning, etc) Run Time Data Base Generation Other Yes or No Yes or No Exports See below Yes or No Yes or No Other Target applications Please provide description of the target applications fed by your process. SAF/CGF Visual (OTW) Sensor (IR, NVG, E/O, etc.) Radar Mission support (terrain following, line of sight, height above terrain, collision detection, etc.) Plan view display Maps Other Imports/exports (and Comments and description Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No Please provide description of the import and Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Comments and description Page 33 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report their localizations in the process) export functions provided by your process. Source data formats (DTED, Geotiff, JPEG 2000, …) OneSAF OTF CTDB OTB JCATS Terrain AFCD NPSI SE Core MDB/CER CDB French DB SEDRIS STF CADRG UHRB Openflight Terrapage VBS2 Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Import, export, both, neither Other Data Representation Please provide description of the Data representation underlying your process in this area : Comments and description Environmental Representation Model (for which data?) Do you use a standard data model (such as SEDRIS DRM), or specialized data model (please specify/describe) Spatial reference frame What reference frame (sometimes called coordinate systems) do you use (e.g. UTM, Augmented UTM, geodetic, geocentric, …) What reference datums or models doo you use (e.g. WGS 84, ED50, NAD27, …_) Data Organization Tiling schemes and objectives: Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 34 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report incremental production imagery mosaicing paging overlap/clipping Layers LOD Case of 3D Models Case of Airports Case of lights Organization for the different targets Organization for multiple representations (for different domains, applications, etc.) Nature of the links for: Assignment of Models to Features Assignment of Texture to models and features Case of other attributes Topological links Traceability links (for e.g. mean to track the origin of data in case of multiple representation of an object) Other relational links Other Software architecture and tools Libraries Files structure Data Base Management System Naming conventions Other Data Formats What are the internal data formats used for each of the following types of data? Elevation (DTED (levels),…) Planimetry (DFAD, Shapefile, KML,…) Imagery (Tiff, GeoTiff, JPEG2K,..) Pictures (RGB, JPEG, GIF, …) 3D Models (OpenFlight, VBS2, VRML, X3D, Collada, 3dsMax,…) Cities (CityGML, UVMAP, UFD) Buildings (UHRB, BIM, …) Point Clouds (LIDAR, …) Material (MatML;..) Attribution Other Metadata Nature Reference dictionaries (for which uses) DIGEST FACC EDCS Yes or No Yes or No Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 35 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report DIS Other Glossary Please provide your definition of the specific terms used to describe your process. List of documentation Please provide a list of documentation available describing the process and data used in your process. Data about the End User Please provide data about the M&S program using your process: Name of Program Yes or No End User Type of Simulation / Type of Entity Further Information Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 36 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.2 GUIDELINE FOR SURVEY Guidelines to support an Informal Survey on on-going Initiatives A.2.1 Object This document is a Guideline to support the RIEDP-SG Informal Survey on on-going Initiatives related to Environmental Data and Processes in Simulation. The Survey is specifically targeting the following Initiatives: NPSI, AFCD, CDB, MDB, and French approach processes. A template at the end of this document is expected to be filled by an authoritative representative of each Initiative. A.2.2 Background A.2.2.1 General Scope Production and reuse of environmental data continues to be a significant part of the overall M&S development and deployment cost. Environmental data includes terrain, ocean, Weather/atmosphere, space, urban, and all related data required for simulation and modeling of entities and sensors. Capitalizing on costsaving approaches that reduce this overall cost is an important topic of interest to the broader M&S community. Various degrees of Standardization that address different aspects of the end-to-end problem exist, and range from international standards to ad hoc approaches. On-going projects in a number of international government programs, as well as initiatives and innovative approaches from industry, continue to contribute to solutions in this area. However, the activities in the community are often fragmented or disjoint, and sometimes do not or cannot leverage existing capabilities, standards, or lessons-learned. In some cases, these are driven by special requirements for specific projects or activities. This results in multiple solutions in the community, differing in their scope, breadth, or depth. The exceptionally large number of attendees at the 2009 Fall SIW Special Workshop on "Reuse of Environmental Data" provided an opportunity for the international community involved with the creation, dissemination, and development of environmental representations and effects databases to discuss existing or emerging approaches, processes, standards, and lessons learned. The presentations indicated that all practitioners use the same general approach in the generation of their environmental data products. Source Data, regardless of detail or complexity, is used in internal data generation processes to produce one or more final products (usually) specific to a particular set of applications, clients, or systems. However, the data generation processes differ from one producer or integrator to another. This implies a desire for harmonization of environmental data representations and processes at the "integrated" level, while trying to retain the data form (or format) close to the source data, and at the same time keeping the internal data consistency (intrinsic correlation factor). Added to this, is the desire for shielding the generalization at this level from specific target application constraints, leaving those to be addressed separately by each target application during run time which may be a contradiction for interoperability. A.2.2.2 RIEDP-SG Scope The Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data and Processes Study Group (RIEDP-SG) was launched during Spring 2010 SISO Interoperability Workshop. It proposes a 12 to 18 month effort to investigate the Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 37 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report level of interest and best approaches for the development and utilization of standardize-able representations of environmental data and associated creation processes for use in simulation applications. Within that broader context, the Study Group will focus on environmental data that can be immediately used in Aircrew Training and Mission Rehearsal applications. Specifically, the focus of this effort will take into account the NPSI, AFCD, CDB, MDB, and French approach processes and data models with the expectation to improve their interoperability and reuse in a standardized approach. As part of its outcome, the SG will recommend how to expand this focus to cover additional requirements. Interim reports will be developed and presented at the Fall 2010, and, if needed, at the Spring 2011 SIWs. It is anticipated that the final report, targeted for either the Spring or Fall 2011 SIW, will recommend the formation of a Product Development Group to produce specific SISO products and/or to establish a Standing Study Group to continue and evolve the initiatives started by this Study Group. A.2.2.3 RIEDP-SG Tasks The RIEDP-SG will execute the following tasks: 1. Conduct an informal survey on on-going Initiatives 2. Define and document a Reference Database Generation Process: a. Establish a common terminology b. Identify common areas in data generation processes between communities c. Identify requirements for one or more standard solutions 3. 3.Synthesis a. Assess the time and effort required for PDG activities b. Produce Interim and Final Reports A.2.2.4 RIEDP-SG Reflector Information on the RIEDP-SG is available on the SG Reflector at www.sisostds.org/discussion A.2.2.5 Status of the RIEDP-SG A second meeting was held during ITEC 2010 in London (see Meeting Minutes), with the Kick Off of the Tasks 1 and 2a. It was decided to gather from representatives of identified initiatives (see below) detailed information about their generation processes in order to establish the reference database generation process and to initialize a common terminology. Initiative NPSI AFCD MDB-SE/CORE CDB French Initiative Organization US Navy USAF US Army USSOCOM/PRESAGIS AAF/ Sogitec & TTS POC Kerey Howard, Bruce Riner Steve Stephens Connie Perry Joe Preston/Nick Giannis Christophe Rind Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 38 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report Mission Land UK Initiative NATO/NLR UK MOD Arjan Lemmers Grant Bailey To facilitate this information collection, it was also decided to provide the representatives with a Guideline for developing and focusing their answer. A.2.3 Guidelines A.2.3.1 Introduction These guidelines are meant to support the informal survey on identified on-going initiatives. The informal survey is, in a first step, limited to gathering information in order to: • initiate an identification and a description of the differences in the exchange formats and DB generation processes, at a rather high level; Initiate a common terminology. • Available documentation associated to the different initiatives provides heterogeneous levels of detail. Through this survey the goal is to align the information on the different initiatives. Therefore, the guidelines for this preliminary step provide a flexible framework to allow contributors to elaborate their answer based on data from their documentation, papers, etc… in order to provide a rapid feed back to the survey. From this first alignment step, a second step of the survey will go into more detail in order to complete as needed the alignment of the collected information on each initiative. The result will be a table summarizing the differences and commonalities of the different initiatives. A.2.3.2 Expected information The information expected in response to the first step of the Survey is the following: • • Nature and characterization of environmental data supported by the DB generation process: Elevation, Planimetry, 3D Models, etc. (see below a more exhaustive list as example). Detailed description of the Database Generation Process underlying the Initiative: o Various stages of the process, from Raw Source Data to Target Applications; o Various “Source” data used; o Various “Operations” performed on the data at the various stages; o Various Target applications at the output of the process; o Data Representations, with representation models, spatial reference frame, data organization, data formats, dictionaries, … datasets, used at the various stages; o Possible import/export functions and the formats used, with their localization in the process. o A glossary/dictionary of the terminology used. o List of documentation available describing the process and data used. o Data about the M&S projects using the DB generation process A template for the answer is shown in Annex A. The Guidelines to fill the form is presented hereafter. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 39 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.2.3.3 More exhaustive list of items expected in the descriptions a Environmental Data For example: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • b Elevation, Planimetry (Features, Vector,...), Imagery, 3D Models, Material, Pictures (textures) Light Points Light Maps Shadow Maps Urban Areas, Building interiors, Networks (road, hydrographic, rail, power line,...) Airports, Navigation data Atmospheric elements Coastlines, Oceanographic data (tide, bathymetry) Other? Stages in the process For example: • • • • • • • • c Source Data Collection Source Data Modification/refinement Source Integration/Reconciliation Content Creation Structuring Publishing Export Other Source Data Among the Environmental Data you have identified above, what are those that you consider as Source data (provided by an external entity: NGA, ….) ? d Operations (and their localization in the process) For example: • On Source Data Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 40 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e o Management (Identifying, Obtaining, Cataloging) o Import o Conversion o Projection change o Georeferencing o Correction (elevation anomalies, spatial conflicts, connectivity lacks , etc ) o Simplification o Image fusion o Imagery harmonization (orthorectification, mosaicing, color balancing, etc) Imagery placement Features placement Material classification Attribution (color, texture, material, features, illumination model, traficability, etc) 3D Model editing (creation of 3D representations for culture features: buildings, trees, vehicles, etc.) Creation of textures Mapping of texture patterns/imagery to the geometrical representation, Generation of the model LOD, and the generation of appropriate attribution data Feature expansion (vegetation, fields, networks, build-up areas, airports, light systems, extrusion operations Smooth contours Object instantiation Procedural generation Data structuration o Tiling o LOD (Terrain, 3D models, texture, etc.) o Other Application tailoring Polygonization (TIN, regular grid, constrained terrain mesh, coastline pinning, etc) Publishing Exports Other Target applications For example: • • • • • • • • f SAF/CGF Visual (OTW) Sensor (IR, NVG, E/O, etc.) Radar Mission support (terrain following, line of sight, height above terrain, collision detection, etc.) Plan view display Maps other Data representation a. Environmental Representation Model (for which data?) For example: Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 41 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • • • SEDRIS DRM Specific Other b. Spatial reference frame For example: • • c. WGS 84 Other Data Organization (and their localizations in the process) For example: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Tiling schemes and objectives: incremental production imagery mosaicing paging overlap/clipping Layers LOD Terrain (geometry, imagery) 3D Models Multiple representations (for different domains, applications, etc.) Links : Topological links, Traceability links (for e.g. mean to track the origin of data in case of multiple representation of an object) other relational links Other Dataset is often used in the Environmental Data Documentation. How do understand and use this notion? d. Data Formats (and their localizations in the process) For example: • • • • • • • • • • Elevation: DTED (levels),… Planimetry : DFAD, Shapefile, KML,… Imagery: Tiff, GeoTiff, JPEG2K,.. Pictures: RGB, JPEG, GIF, … 3D Models: OpenFlight, VBS2, VRML, X3D, Collada, 3dsMax,… Cities: CityGML, UVMAP, UFD Buildings: UHRB, BIM, … Point Clouds (LIDAR, …) Material: MatML;.. Attribution Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 42 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report • • Metadata Other e. Reference dictionaries (for which uses) For example: • • • • g DIGEST FACC EDCS DIS Other Imports/exports (and their localizations in the process) For example: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • h Source data formats (DTED, Geotiff, JPEG 2000, …) OneSAF OTF CTDB OTB JCATS Terrain AFCD NPSI SE Core MDB/CER CDB French DB SEDRIS STF CADRG UHRB Openflight Terrapage VBS2 Other Glossary Definition of the specific terms used to describe the process. i List of documentation List of the documentation related to the process. j Data about Customer List and characterization of the M&S Program using the process in terms of : • • • End User : Army, Navy, Air Force, SO, Other Type of Simulation : Live, Virtual, Constructive, Type of Entity : Naval, Fast Mover Air, Slow Mover Air, Ground, Urban, Other Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 43 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.2.4 Annex A – Template Name of Initiative: Point of Contact: Name : Email : Organization : A.2.4.1 Environmental Data Please provide description of environmental data used in your process. A.2.4.2 Stages in the process Please provide description of the various stages of your process. A.2.4.3 Source Data Among the Environmental Data you have identified above, what are those that you consider as Source data (provided by an external entity: NGA,…) ? A.2.4.4 Operations (and their localization in the process) Please provide description of the operations in each stage of your process. A.2.4.5 Target applications Please provide description of the target applications fed by your process. A.2.4.6 Data representation Please provide description of the Data representation underlying your process in these areas: a Environmental Representation Model (for which data?) b Spatial reference frame Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 44 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report c Data Organization (and their localizations in the process) d Data Formats (and their localizations in the process e Reference dictionaries (for which uses) A.2.4.7 Imports/exports (and their localizations in the process) Please provide description of the import and export functions provided by your process. A.2.4.8 Glossary Please provide your definition of the specific terms used to describe your process. Please give also your definition for the following terms: • Dataset • Pinning A.2.4.9 List of documentation Please provide a list of documentation available describing the process and data used in your process. A.2.4.10 Data about the Customer Please provide data about the M&S project using your process: Name of Program End User Type of Simulation Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Type of Entity Page 45 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.3 SUMMARY OF ALL INTERVIEWS A.3.1 UK MoD This interview was held on Monday 10:30 to 12:00 AM in a meeting room of the International pavilion, with Grant Bailey as representative of the UK MoD. Grant explained that he is interested in the RIEDP-SG because the UK MoD is considering the outsourcing of database production as part of the Defence Training & Simulation Services (DTS2), and interoperability with NATO and Allied forces is very important. Grant explained that the UK’s answer to the questionnaire is intentionally vague because of the ongoing bidding process and that the UK is looking for a solution to their requirements from industry. However, he gave some information on the content of the expected capability (very similar to SE Core). Grant understands the approach of RIEDP, as well as the UML model initiated by Sogitec, but he does not want to make detailed comments because of the reasons explained above. A.3.2 NATO / Mission Land This interview was held on Monday 14:00 to 15:30 AM in a meeting room of the International pavilion, with Arjan Lemmers from the Netherlands National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) as project manager for the NATO Mission Land. This project is interested in the RIEDP-SG for any contributions from the Study Group to help making choices in the formats for the Mission Land DB. The NATO Mission land project aims at providing, free for use to the NATO community, a terrain database representing a fictitious continent in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This will include a diverse geotypical environment, from cold areas to deserts, urban and port areas, an island, as well as others. The work is being done in co-operation with several countries. It is based on a low fidelity (30m) elevation layer (made by Norway and available), with High Fidelity (15 m) areas (made by several nations and available) and Very High Fidelity inserts (to be done). The vector layer is being done at the Low Fidelity level, but the work is complicated by some issues (e.g. rivers not flowing downhill). Should it be based on actual geo-specific data? It seems that Sweden, in charge of the island part of the DB, has used the data from geo-specific Swedish island. For Imagery, the project is facing the issues of repetition and blending of textures, as well as the intellectual property rights on these textures. The formats to be used are not yet selected. Possible formats are Digital Terrain Elevation Data at Level 2 density (DTED 2) and Shapefile or IHO S57 for point, line and area features. Terminology for specifying and identifying features and attributes in the database will be drawn from the Defence Geospatial Working Group (DGIWG) Feature and attribute Coding Catalogue (FACC) or the DGIWG Feature Data Dictionary (DFDD) or the JTC1 SC24 ISO/IEC 18024 Environmental Data Coding Specification (EDCS) for the reference dictionary. A.3.3 USAF/AFRL This interview was held on Monday 16:30 to 18:00 AM in a meeting room of the International pavilion, with Steve Stephens (USAF / AFRL) and Mike Sieverding (L-3 Comm/Link Support to AFRL.). Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 46 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report AFRL representatives have expressed interest in the RIEDP-SG since the beginning and provided the cochair of the group. Given the various exchanges between Sogitec and AFRL during the last months and the high quality and level of detail in their responses to the Questionnaire, the content of the meeting was focused on commenting on the UML model initiated by Sogitec. The AFRL representatives are interested in the idea of enhancing the level of reusability by pushing standardization towards the goals described by the RIEDP-SG, but insist on the requirement that it must not compromise innovation and competition between various industry solutions for database generation systems (DBGS). The AFRL representatives agree with the notions as presented in the UML model: • • • Layers (elevation, feature, imagery, 3D) and associated formats. It is agreed that the list of formats cannot be permanent in order to benefit from possible new technologies. The notion of Library of common object Classes (not to be confused with the Repository of datasets) to be linked to the Feature Instances The attributions, with the links to the rendering attributes described in extension files Comments are made on the following elements: • • Tiles: AFCD does not impose a fixed size for tiles. It is agreed that this is an element of difference between initiatives, not a technical issue, but possibly impacting time/cost to consume. Airport: a SINDBAD Airport is a collection of feature instances independent from the tiles. This is a main difference when compared to the CDB, in which an airport may be split into different tiles if located at the border. The AFRL representative notes that for the RDM, the Airport object should be generalized to take into account other areas such as urban areas. A.3.4 US Army / SE Core This interview was held on Wednesday from 18:00 to 18:45 AM at a PEO STRI Booth, with Rob Cox from US Army / SE Core. Rob explained that SE Core’s answer to the questionnaire was intentionally vague, because the program is currently in a bidding process. Rob indicated that he plans to clarify the content of the program and that he will make a detailed presentation at ITEC 2011 (“Environmental representation and standards” session). He gave some insights into current SE Core’s capabilities: • • Production of the databases for the virtual simulations of the US Army, including the various target runtime formats. The MDB uses some SEDRIS-based ISO/IEC standards: the Spatial Reference Model (SRM), the Environment Data Coding Specification (EDCS), and partially the Data Representation Model (DRM), supporting production of the SEDRIS Transmittal Format (STF). He considers the production of the target applications runtime formats a heavy burden for the SE Core program to keep up with the evolutions of all the target applications’ formats. Drawing a line in the database generation process, based on common approaches could be a good solution for SE Core evolution. The goals described by the RIEDP-SG approach could correspond to the point in the process where the SE Core line may be drawn. Using Shapefiles as one of the formats in the MDB could also be considered. Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 47 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report A.3.5 US Navy (NAVAIR) This interview was held on Thursday from14:00 to 15:00 AM in the SOCOM room, with Kerey Howard and Bruce Riner (NPSI), and Mike Sieverding (L-3 Comm/Link support to AFRL.) who helped with organization of the meeting. Although Kerey had participated in the Phoenix (IMAGE) meeting, NPSI had not yet answered the Questionnaire and there seemed to be a misunderstanding somewhere. This meeting clarified that situation. A misunderstanding occurred from use of the term “Database” which Sogitec used to designate the correlated sets of data at the level immediately following the source data level (but not the runtime). When this use of database was understood by NPSI it clarified the RIEDP-SG is also not interested in generating a common run time database. Then the main elements of the UML model provided by Sogitec were discussed, in relationship with the NPSI documentation on Metadata. As this document can also be seen as an XML model of the database, it should be possible to map it to the UML model and to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Given the commonality between AFCD and the NPSI Metadata Document, the level of convergence should be good. A.3.6 Complementary information on SE Core (Provided by Rob Cox) The SE Core Master Database (MDB) is the central repository for the creation of correlated databases used to train, mission plan, or mission rehearsal in the Live, Virtual, or Constructive (LVC) domains. Within the DVED the database architecture is coupled with a suite of COTS tools that enable database development. The SE Core effort will also develop common virtual vehicle models, common virtual sensor simulation software, and the virtual simulation component of the dynamic environment. The dynamic environment will include approximate visual effects from simulation (e.g., munitions, mobility, engineering, rubbled buildings, etc.). The SE Core process is flexible, data-driven, and extensible. The Standard/Rapid Database Generation Capability (STDGC) is designed to standardize, align, and clean source data in the Master Terrain Database Generation Toolkit (MTDGT), which also is used to generate synthetic environment data using the Runtime Database Generation Toolset (RDGT). Data is exported in various formats from a standard application programmer interface (API)3. Furthermore, the SE Core process addresses other challenges such as miscorrelation between simulations and lower database generation costs. When a database request has been submitted and it has been approved, the process of gathering source data begins. There are five (5) questions that must be answered as the database request is fulfilled. Those questions are: 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the technical requirements (database and system)? What are the resources required for acquisition? What are the storage/space requirements for the data? What coordination of acceptance of the source data must be done and how do we deliver the resultant data? 5. Are there any conversions that are expected? Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 48 of 30 SISO-REF-043-2012, RIEDP Study Group Final Report The SE Core has also developed an extensive document that outlines the source data investigated for use. The reference document lists over 160 different types of data that are currently investigated for use in building an SE Core database. All data is spatially partitioned based on MIL-PRF-89041A. The imagery is stored based on the US NGA CIB format. For consistency, the vectors are also partitioned based on the CIB schema with one important difference; they are not chopped to the tiles, but references the groups of features to the CIB tiles they intersect. All data is stored in latitude/longitude using the WGS-84 reference datum. If source data uses a different coordinate system or reference datum, the SEDRIS developed ISO/IEC 18026 – Spatial Reference Model is used for coordinate conversion or datum transformation. The SE Core data model is based on the SEDRIS ISO/IEC 18023-1 Data Representation Model (DRM) and all data concepts are defined by the SEDRIS ISO/IEC 18025 Environmental Data Coding Specification (EDCS). There are also several tools that are used to certify the data is ready for use. These tools check for invalid and null geometry and attribution. Plus, the tools check for compliance to the SE Core standards for geometry, spatial referencing, definition, labeling, etc. It should be noted that the SEDRIS ISO/IEC standards are also NATO STANAGS. Note from the RIEDP SG: "In May 2012, the NATO M&S Group (NMSG) noted a sufficient number of positive answers to the SEDRIS STANAGs Ratification Request Letter sent to Nations. I.a.w. NATO standardization related regulations, NMSG agreed in June 2012 via Silence Procedure to recommend to the NATO Standardization Agency (NSA) their promulgation. The promulgation has been formally requested by the NMSG chair to the NSA in July 2012. The SEDRIS STANAGs were officially promulgated by NSA on 17 October 2012. Definitions (from NSA): • Ratification is “In NATO Standardization, the process by which a NATO member nation determines its position regarding the implementation of a NATO standardization agreement” (AAP-42). • Promulgation is “In NATO Standardization a formal act by which the Director of the NATO Standardization Agency publishes a NATO standardization document, following a recommendation by the tasking authority or delegated tasking authority” (AAP-42). Copyright © 2012 SISO. All rights reserved This is an approved SISO Reference Product. Page 49 of 30