Ontology of Military Planning and Operations Assessment: Difference between revisions

From NCOR Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
:The role of doctrine in the planning process  
:The role of doctrine in the planning process  
:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
:The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus
::An Example: The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus
:Need for a plan ntology
::Why the CALL Thesaurus will not work
:Role of speech act theory and document act theory
:Need for a plan ontology as part of a suite of interoperable military ontology modules
::Document Control Ontology
:Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture
:::How actions control documents
::Populating ontology modules through iterative extension
:::How documents control documents
:Plans vs plan specifications
:::How documents control actions
::The Information Artifact Ontology
::::The orchestral score and its subscores
:Plans vs Plan specifications
::Anatomy of a plan specification
::Anatomy of a plan specification
:Elements of the planning process
::Information elements
::Mental elements
::Action-related elements
:(Hidden slides on the ontology of deontic elements)
:What is the living plan?


13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]
13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]

Revision as of 17:17, 22 November 2014

Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security (STIDS) Conference

The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?


Schedule

13:00 Barry Smith (NCOR) Slides

The role of doctrine in the planning process
Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
An Example: The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus
Why the CALL Thesaurus will not work
Need for a plan ontology as part of a suite of interoperable military ontology modules
Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture
Populating ontology modules through iterative extension
Plans vs plan specifications
The Information Artifact Ontology
Anatomy of a plan specification
Elements of the planning process
Information elements
Mental elements
Action-related elements
(Hidden slides on the ontology of deontic elements)
What is the living plan?

13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) Slides

Review of existing military planning and operations assessment regimes
APEX
Identification of resulting problems
Gap assessment
Need: Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi-level planning agencies

14:40 Break

15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) Slides

Realizing a computational framework for the living plan
Modules (phases in the cycle):
Situational Awareness
Plan Development
Plan Review and Selection
Plan Commitment (transforming selected plan specification into plan)
Plan Absorption
Plan Communication (plans and subplans to be executed by corresponding sub-units)
Plan Execution
Plan Evaluation and Operations / Outcomes Assessment (actual vs. predicted outcomes)
The underlying multidimensional information system
Data ingestion of multi-channel information
Kinetic sensors
video
HUMINT

15.50 Barry Smith

The ontology of shared agency across large organizations
From tactical to strategic: how can we create computational environments that will take account of single- and multi-level collaborative agency?
Review of the history of approaches to military planning and operations assessment

16:40 Break

17:00 ET, BS and tutorial participants

Exploratory session to allow critical review, presentation of alternative approaches, identification of potential secondary uses

Background


Faculty

Frederick Reed, scientist at Charles River Analytics working in areas such as man-machine systems analysis, human factors, organizational learning and development, knowledge management, and applied philosophy (particularly Pragmatism of C.S. Peirce).

Barry Smith, founder of the Ontology for the Intelligence Community (now STIDS) conference series, is an internationally recognized leader in the field of ontology and semantic technology. He is Professor of Philosophy, Biomedical Informatics, Neurology, and Computer Science and Engineering at the State University of New York at Buffalo and Director of the National Center for Ontological Research.

Erik Thomsen is Senior Scientist - Cognitive Systems at Charles River Analytics in Boston, MA. He has over 20 years experience creating analytical software and business applications with an emphasis on intelligent systems and socio-economic and environmental models. He is also the author of multiple publications on data integration and fusion, semantic technologies, visualization, pattern recognition, foundations of logic, language and mathematics, and of the influential textbook OLAP: Building Multidimensional Information Systems (Wiley, 2nd edition).