Coalition Battle Management Language Euro. SIW 21 June 2006 Stockholm UNCLASSIFIED
Structure of the Presentation • • • What is a Battle Management Language (BML) Why do we need a BML History of BML Scope of Coalition BML (C-BML) Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) C-BML Standardization Activity • NATO ET 016/MSG 048 • Operational Benefits • PLAN ET – Exploratory Team MSG – Modelling & Simulation Group UNCLASSIFIED
What is a BML • BML - an unambiguous language to: – Command control (C 2) simulated and live forces conducting military operations, and – Provide for situational awareness and a shared, common operational picture. Shared Semantics between C 2 and M&S via a Common Tasking Description UNCLASSIFIED
The Need for a Common BML • M&S requires a standardized community approach to scenario initialization and scripting. • No common BML solution exists today – There are only point-to-point solutions. • Point to Point solutions have inherent disadvantages: – – Cost of developing individual languages. Cost of developing translations between individual languages. Inhibits the ability of military users to use tools interchangeably. Manual and error prone process – “Swivel Chair” effect. • No common solution to enable automated C 2 to simulation interoperability. UNCLASSIFIED
Current State of C 2 to Simulation Interoperability • Message Driven Approaches – Use C 2 System Messages (ADat. P-3, LINK) – C 2 System don’t have to be changed – M&S Specific Data not part of the C 2 Information Exchange Requirements • High Level Architecture (HLA) Driven Approaches – Simulations use Methods of the HLA – HLA Compliant Solutions easy to use with Interfaces – But C 2 Methods and Data are not aligned with HLA • General Underlying Problems – C 2 and Simulation data are not aligned semantically – IT Architectures are not aligned UNCLASSIFIED
History of BML • Developed by the US Army – Early versions included Eagle BML – CCSIL (Command Control Simulation Interface Language) • Initial representation of Operations Order in BML – Enabled unambiguous “machine instructions” – Can be exploited to input C 2 tasking to simulations – Used a 5 W representation of a Operations Order • Culminated in Proof of Principle Demonstration in 2003 – Demonstrated BML for a Brigade/Battalion 5 paragraph Operations Order – Shown to Army Senior Leadership – Complete BML schema in the US Joint Common Data Base (JCDB) – Used a prototype US Army C 2 System – Combined Arms Planning and Execution System (CAPES) and a US Army Entity Level Simulation - One. SAF UNCLASSIFIED
BML Representation – 5 Ws Division Mission Division Concept of Operations Division attacks on order in zone to seize OBJ SLAM. C 2 Plans & Orders (C 2 IEDM) As Graphics As Data Who What When Where Why BLUE-MECHBDE 1 BLUE-MECHBDE 2 BLUE-ARMORBDE 1 Attacks On order Zone Fix (MRR 1) Attacks On order Zone Penetrate (MRR 2) Follows & Assumes (B-MBDE 2) BLUE-AVN-BDE Occupy On order Zone Seize (OBJ SLAM) On order AA EAGLE Reserve BLUE-ARMORBN 1 On order Zone Support (B-ABDE 1) On order Zone (PL AMBER Protect (Division to PL BLUE) left flank) Follow and Support (B-ABDE 1) BLUE-CAV-SQN 1 Screen BLUE-MECHTM 1 UNCLASSIFIED Tactical Combat On order Force DSA Protect (Division Rear Area)
Why 5 W Representation? • WHO: which unit is to accomplish the task. – Normally identified by a Unit_ID. – When Unit_ID is in doubt, could be identified by location. – Could be identified by ROLE (Main Effort, Security Force, etc. ) • WHAT: the task to be accomplished. – Could be either an operation or as in the US by designating an ARTEP task. – Selection maybe dependent on how much the higher commander wants to limit his subordinate. The more specific the task the less it conforms to “mission type”. • WHEN: the timing of the task. – Control type (AT a certain time, NLT a certain time, EVENT_PLUS_T (D+1, H+2, etc. ) – Parameters: (DTG, Event, Time, Unit_ID, etc. . ) UNCLASSIFIED
Why 5 W Representation? (2) WHERE: the location for accomplishing the task. – Lat/Long, UTM, MGRS, etc. – Terrain_Feature_ID, Graphic_Control_Measure_ID WHY: the reason for accomplishing the task. – Purpose term. (Attrit, Defeat, Destroy, Contain, Clear, etc. . ) – Parameters: (dependent on the term but required for clarification: Destroy what? Enemy Force, Terrain Feature) HOW: In mission type orders, how to do a task is left up to the subordinate. The “general” ‘How’ for the order itself is found in the context of the Commander’s Intent and the Concept of Operations. UNCLASSIFIED
XBML Test-bed demonstrated at I/ITSEC 2004 UNCLASSIFIED
BML OV 1 C 2 Domain Language(s) Command Control Systems Ground BML Maritime BML Air BML geo. BML Logistics BML Crisis Management Language … JC 3 IEDM UNCLASSIFIED Modeling and Simulation Systems
Why use CDIEDM/JC 3 IEDM? ACTION-OBJECTIVE ACTION-id (FK) ACTION-OBJECTIVE-index ACTION-OBJECTIVE-categorycode ACTION-TASK WHAT ACTION-TASK-id (FK) ACTION-id WHY ACTION-category-code ACTION-name ACTION-TASK -minimum-duration ACTION-TASK -maximum-duration ACTION-TASK -estimated-duration ACTION-TASK -planned-start-date ACTION-TASK -planned-end-date ACTION-TASK -planned-start-time ACTION-TASK -planned-end-time ACTION-category-code ACTION-TASK ACTION-EVENT ORGANISATION-TYPE -category-code UNIT-TYPE POST-TYPE WHEN ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION ORGANISATION-id (FK) ACTION-id (FK) ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION-index ORGANISATION-TYPE-id ORGANISATION-TYPECATEGORY-CODE WHAT ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -category-code ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -effective-date ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -effective-time ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -intent-text ORGANISATION WHO ORGANISATION-id (FK) ORGANISATION -category-code ORGANISATION -nickname-name ORGANISATION -type-id (FK) MATERIAL-POINT UNIT-TYPE-id (FK) UNIT-TYPE -category-code UNIT-TYPE -mobility-code UNIT-TYPE -service-code UNIT-TYPE -size-code (echelo n) ORGANIZATION-POINT FEATURE-LOCATION FACILITY-LOCATION PERSON-POINT LOCATION WHERE LOCATION-id LOCATION -category-code UNCLASSIFIED
Why Coalition BML? • A number of countries were addressing C 2 to simulation interoperability. • Military operations unlikely to be conducted outside an existing alliance or as part of a coalition. • Pooling of national efforts seen to be the best way of developing an internationally recognised standard. • Why the abbreviated form “C-BML” and not “CBML” – The UK Mo. D have trademarked CBML or Corporate Business Modelling Language as it refers to but they should note it is also known as Comic Book Mark-up Language in another domain. UNCLASSIFIED
Scope of C-BML C 2 M&S MIP Activities C 2 Systems C-BML+ C 2 Systems MSG-048 Activities C 2 Systems Robotics C-BML is an extension of current C 2 IEDM (JC 3 IEDM) C 2 IEDM/ JC 3 IEDM C-BML M&S Systems Future Activities C 2 Systems UNCLASSIFIED C-BML+ Robotics
Triangular View of C-BML Terms rooted in Military Doctrine, such as AAP-6 … XML Web Services C 2 IEDM/ JC 3 IEDM UNCLASSIFIED
Aim of C-BML Development • C-BML will provide an ontology for describing military missions and tasks using the C 2 IEDM/JC 3 IEDM. – Ontology enables unambiguous “machine instructions” – Can be exploited to input C 2 tasking to simulations • C-BML will establish a C 2 and Simulation independent interoperability capability: – Automated initialization of C 2 systems and simulation environments – C 2 to Simulation information exchange – Will enable rapid M&S-based course-of-action analysis capability UNCLASSIFIED
Development of C-BML as a Standard (1) • SISO approved establishment of a C-BML Study Group (SG) in September, 2004. Its Terms of Reference were to – Conduct a survey comprising as many international contributions applicable to the C-BML effort as possible – Develop a plan of how these various efforts identified in task one can contribute to a common C-BML standard/standard framework – Formulate a set of recommendations for a C-BML Product Development Group (PDG) • Liaise with Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) SG (Group established after C-BML SG in April 2005) • Participants represent a wide body of expertise, including: – Representatives from 11 different nations – Over 100 participants at SG meetings – Industry, Academia, Government UNCLASSIFIED
Development of C-BML as a Standard (2) • Numerous SG meetings and workshops (outside of SIW meetings) • SG report published September 2005 with following recommendations: – – SISO accept the C-BML Product Nomination SISO establish a C-BML PDG A phased approach be taken for development of the standard The C-BML PDG be separate from a proposed MSDL PDG • C-BML focuses on C 2/M&S data interchange • MSDL focuses on simulation initialization – C-BML and MSDL PDGs collaborate on areas of common interest – Maintain engagement with C 2 community to ensure joint ownership and development of the standard • SISO Standards Activity Committee (SAC) recommended approval of C-BML and MSDL PN to Executive Committee (EXCOM) in February 2006 UNCLASSIFIED
Phased Approach to a C-BML Standard • Phase 1 - C 2 IEDM/JC 3 IEDM in the form of an XML schema embedded into a WSDL • Phase 2 - Tasking grammar and vocabulary (based on C 2 IEDM/JC 3 IEDM) • Phase 3 - Reporting grammar and vocabulary (based on C 2 IEDM/JC 3 IEDM) • Phase 4 - Development of a common ontology to enable composability UNCLASSIFIED
NATO ET 016/MSG 048 (1) • NATO NMSG established an Exploratory Team (ET 016) to examine C-BML – Lead by France and USA with participation from 6 other nations; Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom • Demonstrated feasibility of C-BML at NMSG meeting in Warsaw October 2005 UNCLASSIFIED
Limited Technical Demonstration • Demonstrated the feasibility of a C-BML/C 2 IEDM based interface standards using Web Services between national C 2 IS (US and French systems) and M&S-type systems • Build experience to help structure a research programme • Demonstration Architecture UNCLASSIFIED
NATO ET 016/MSG 048 (2) • NMSG approved MSG 048 to start a 3 year Technical Activity Programme (TAP) from May 2006 UNCLASSIFIED
Envisaged End State for NATO MSG 048 TAP Plus Canada UNCLASSIFIED
Operational Benefits • Reduce or eliminate the overhead on workstation controllers • Shared C 2 and M&S semantics improve preciseness, conciseness, and automated processing • Reduced time and effort, information input once and used by many • Facilitates automated processing of plans and orders by applications, simulations, software agents and services • Reduce time and effort to develop and share Operational Orders • Improved Interoperability based on emerging standards for improve Service, Joint, Combined, and Coalition C 2 UNCLASSIFIED
Relationship with MSDL and C-BML Execution Initialization C 4 I Real Infrastructure Software e. g. Middleware Unit Model Soldier Model C-BML <Initialize> <WHAT>TANK <WHERE> POS <WHEN> TIME <RUN ON> Simulation X <EXECUTE> A Series of C-BML orders C-BML, MSDL C 4 I Model Robotic Force Tank Real UNCLASSIFIED Intention Situation Object Signal Evaluation
v. Chair v Maj Kevin Galvin v. Co-Chair v Andreas Tolk (When SAC approves, according to SISO rules) v. Vice Chair v Per Gustavsson v. Secretary v Charles Turnitsa UNCLASSIFIED
Drafting Group v Editors v Michael Hieb v Assistant Editor Phase 1: Bruce Carlton v Members (Volunteers) v v v Charles Turnitsa Gary Farmer Curtis Blais William Sudnikovich Per Gustavsson Kevin Galvin Andreas Tolk Rob Wittman Henrik Nord QI Huang … UNCLASSIFIED
Schedule from Product Nomination Spring – Fall 06 Version I Development: Collaborative and aligning development with MSDL with respect to the following: The 5 Ws concept with potential extensions to support ‘Which’ and ‘How’ attribution. The naming conventions and types of units, activities, interactions, and relationships. The initial rules and guidelines for structure, content, and format. The initial context for structure, content, and format (NATO, Land, etc. ). Continued collaborative grammar development. Version I Development: Collaborative and aligning development with MSDL with respect to the following: UNCLASSIFIED
Schedule from Product Nomination cont’d Spring ‘ 06 Apr. 2 -7 PDG face-to-face meeting – Spring SIW, Huntsville, AL Summer ‘ 06 Jun. 19 -22 PDG face-to-face meeting – Euro SIW, Stockholm, Sweden Review, DG & PDG report Summer ‘ 06 25 -26 July George Mason University, Washington (Hieb host) Intermediate Meeting(s) Fall ‘ 06 PDG face-to-face meeting – Fall SIW, Orlando, FL Spring ‘ 07 Balloting, Version 1. 0 UNCLASSIFIED
Questions • CBML-SAC-PDG reflector UNCLASSIFIED
