Joint Doctrine Ontology: Difference between revisions

From NCOR Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(40 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<u> Joint Doctrine Ontology Project</u>
<u> Joint Doctrine Ontology Project</u>


The goal of this project is to create a formal representation of the content of (selected parts of) Doctrine that is designed to help
== Background of this project ==


*understand logically how different parts of doctrine interact
This project is carried out under two Rome Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) initiatives [http://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/09/15/air-force-mama-network-mapping-analysis.aspx MAMA]" and "Living Plan".The project is directed by [http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith Barry Smith].
*visualize how different parts of doctrine interact
*understand dependences between definitions,
*ensure that changes in definitions cascade appropriately through all dependent definitions
*enabling more efficient web access to and discovery of doctrinal knowledge and definitions of a sort that will facilitate greater coordination of training and operations particular as these involve IT systems working alongside human beings.


The project is directed by Barry Smith, whose work is carried out under two Rome Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) projects "[http://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/09/15/air-force-mama-network-mapping-analysis.aspx MAMA]" and "Living Plan". The project has the support of [https://www.linkedin.com/in/mac0302 Lt Col James McArthur], Chief, Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff.
== Publication ==
 
Peter Morosoff, Ron Rudnicki, Jason Bryant, Robert Farrell, Barry Smith, “[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/2015/STIDS-JDO.pdf Joint Doctrine Ontology: A Benchmark for Military Information Systems Interoperability]”, Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security (STIDS), CEUR, 2015
 
== Goal ==
 
The goal of this project is to create a formal representation of the content of (selected parts of) Doctrine.
 
== Examples of potential uses ==
 
1. to doctrine authors:
:- enabling the creation of flexible visualizations of how different parts of doctrine interact, or of doctrinal content relevant to particular types of operations or capabilities
:- allowing a tracing of dependences between definitions that can help to ensure that changes in definitions cascade appropriately through all dependent definitions when revisions are made
 
2. to doctrine users:
:- enabling more effective discovery of doctrinal knowledge in forms useful for computational reasoning
:- providing for each term in the DoD Dictionary its own web page, serving as a repository of usage and of revision history,
 
3. in the form of new uses for the content of doctrine
:- allowing the DoD Dictionary to serve as entry point for web-based searches across multiple repositories of authoritative data
:- facilitating greater coordination of training and operations particularly as these involve IT systems working alongside human beings
:- increasing automation of processes such as plan specification, ops assessment, BlueForce Status, and scenario development
:- allowing new sorts of assessment processes, for example based on measures of adherence to doctrine, processes which may in turn give rise to new ways of computationally identifying areas where changes in doctrine may be needed
 
4. to facilitate communication
:- for example between intelligence analysts and the warfighters who are users of intelligence data
 
The Joint Doctrine Ontology will provide a new source of ground truth for ontologists across DoD and IC that will help to identify gaps and errors in existing military ontologies. It will thereby support consistent agile ontology development of a sort that will counteract current tendencies towards silo-formation and failure of interoperation.
 
== Work plan ==


The project will begin with a small number of modules focusing on:
The project will begin with a small number of modules focusing on:


:1. Capstone (JP 1-0)
:1. Capstone (Task, Function and Mission)  (JP 1)
:2. Planning (JP 5-0)
:2. Planning (JP 5-0)
:3. Airforce Planning ([http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cv/publication/afdd3-0/afdd3-0.pdf
:3. Civil Operations (JP 3-57)
:4. Civil Operations (JP 3-57)
:4. Space Operations (JP 3-14)
:5. Air Mobility Operations (JP 3-17)
 
:TBD: Operational Environment
:TBD: Operational Environment
:TBD: Transport (4-01)
:TBD: Sustainment
Initially we are focusing on
:A. review of existing definitions to identify taxonomic relations.
:B. exploring the role of Joint Doctrine and more specific doctrinal publications (for example the relation between the Joint Dictionary (JP 1-02) and the [http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp1_02.pdf Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1-02], or between Joint Planning and Airforce Planning ([http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cv/publication/afdd3-0/afdd3-0.pdf])
Issues to be addressed:
:Relation to existing efforts, especially:
::[http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a433870.pdf BML] and [http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-MSG-048///$$TR-MSG-048-ALL.pdf C-BML]
:::See presentation [http://dodccrp.org/events/14th_iccrts_2009/presentations/027.pdf here]
:The role of ontology fragments to be reused in different areas of doctrine, for example pertaining to [https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/6A489D10-160C-4301-90D5-377E5FE38156-1311167781441/3-24.2/chap1.htm PMESII-PT]


Initially we are focusing on review of existing definitions to identify and fix logical errors. Further down the road we anticipate that the work of formal representation of the definitions will help us to do things like:
== Information on Joint Doctrine ==


<u>Background Information on Joint Doctrine</u>
[http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/ Joint Electonic Library]


[[Joint Doctrine Hierarchy]]
[[Joint Doctrine Hierarchy]]
Line 29: Line 69:
[http://fas.org/man/doctrine.htm DoctrineLink]
[http://fas.org/man/doctrine.htm DoctrineLink]


[http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/502501p.pdf Joint Doctrine, Joint Terminology Program, and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5025. 12]: Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology
[http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/cjcsi5705_01d.pdf CJCSI 5705.01D (10 November 2010)] Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, especially Enclosure C


[http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/training/ujtl_tasks.htm Universal Joint Task List (UJTL)]
[http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/training/ujtl_tasks.htm Universal Joint Task List (UJTL)]
Line 37: Line 77:
[http://www.jcs.mil/portals/36/Documents/102710173839_Joint_Concept_for_Logistics_v1_FINAL_with_CJCS_Sig.pdf Joint Concept for Logistics]
[http://www.jcs.mil/portals/36/Documents/102710173839_Joint_Concept_for_Logistics_v1_FINAL_with_CJCS_Sig.pdf Joint Concept for Logistics]


<u>Related Efforts</u>
[http://www.carlisle.army.mil/library/bibs/joint07.pdf Jointness: A Selected Bibliography]
 
== Related efforts ==
 
[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1e6/e43cb0dd427a4689a7875ee63470597c3737.pdf Data Science for Joint Doctrine]
 
[http://www.isi.edu/isd/JFACC/loom-jfacc-final-report.pdf JFACC Ontology]


[https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=410029 Acquisition Community Connection]
[https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=410029 Acquisition Community Connection]
Line 45: Line 91:
[http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp1_02.pdf U.S. Army Unified Land Operations, with Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1-02]: Operational Terms and Military Symbol
[http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp1_02.pdf U.S. Army Unified Land Operations, with Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1-02]: Operational Terms and Military Symbol


[http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-architecture/9.0/reports/bealist_jointcapabilityarea_na.htm Joint Capabilitu Areas]
[http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-architecture/9.0/reports/bealist_jointcapabilityarea_na.htm Joint Capability Areas]


[https://www.niem.gov/Pages/default.aspx National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)]
[https://www.niem.gov/Pages/default.aspx National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)]
Line 51: Line 97:
[http://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work/JIE Joint Information Environment (JIE)]
[http://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work/JIE Joint Information Environment (JIE)]


DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF).
[http://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoDArchitectureFramework/dodaf20_ontology1.aspx DoD Architecture Framework] (DoDAF)


Data Services Environnent (DSE). DoDI 8320.02, “Sharing Data, Information, and Information Technology (IT) Services in the Department of Defense.”
[http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/832002p.pdf Data Services Environnent (DSE)]: DoDI 8320.02, “Sharing Data, Information, and Information Technology (IT) Services in the Department of Defense.”


c. Joint Taxonomy effort.
== Global Force Management (GFM) ==
 
d. Adaptive Planning and Execution (APEX) System
 
'''Global Force Management (GFM)'''


[http://www.prim.osd.mil/init2/gfmdi.html GFM Data Initiative]
[http://www.prim.osd.mil/init2/gfmdi.html GFM Data Initiative]
Line 71: Line 113:
:[http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/826003m_vol2.pdf DoDM 8260.03] Volume 2: Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: The Organizational and Force Structure Construct (OFSC)
:[http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/826003m_vol2.pdf DoDM 8260.03] Volume 2: Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: The Organizational and Force Structure Construct (OFSC)


<u>Planning</u>
== Planning ==


'''Adaptive Planning and Execution (APRX)'''
[http://www.imse.iastate.edu/dorneich/files/2013/02/2010_KSCO_ITA_Planning.pdf Making Plans Alive]


:[https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7f55b167-54e8-4104-814b-c888d5d53113/NWC-2061D-GEF-JSCP-APEX-Dec-2013-CHG-1.aspx APEX and GFM]
[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=michael_dorneich Improving Coalition Planning by Making Plans Alive]


:[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icfi.com%2Finsights%2Fprojects%2Fdefense%2Fadaptive-planning-and-execution-for-us-joint-forces-command&ei=JXqWVbbDGsH3-AGnsY_YCw&usg=AFQjCNE0a4GxFAvEMOsC4jgO2vvxaFBQVg&sig2=9-jmjbInGvj_fRZq1w5VqA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cWw Slides]
[https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7f55b167-54e8-4104-814b-c888d5d53113/NWC-2061D-GEF-JSCP-APEX-Dec-2013-CHG-1.aspx APEX and GFM]


:[http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2012-Mar-Apr/Price.pdf The Downfall of Adaptive Planning]
[http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2012-Mar-Apr/Price.pdf The Downfall of Adaptive Planning]


[http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ews/Documents/MCWP%205-1%20MCPP%20(24%20Aug%202010).pdf Marine Corps Planning Process]
[http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/ews/Documents/MCWP%205-1%20MCPP%20(24%20Aug%202010).pdf Marine Corps Planning Process]
Line 87: Line 129:
[http://www.slideshare.net/cprhoades/msl201-introduction-toplansandorders?related=4 Introduction to Plans and Orders]
[http://www.slideshare.net/cprhoades/msl201-introduction-toplansandorders?related=4 Introduction to Plans and Orders]


Erik Thomsen, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/mil/STIDS-2014-Living-Plan.pdf A Computational Framework for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security (STIDS), George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, November 18-20, 2014.
[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/mil/STIDS-2014-Living-Plan.pdf A Computational Framework for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]


[https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7d3f6744-b9c4-479b-9c8d-da2c132e368e/Planning-for-Planners_Jan_2012_new.aspx Planning for Planners]
[https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7d3f6744-b9c4-479b-9c8d-da2c132e368e/Planning-for-Planners_Jan_2012_new.aspx Planning for Planners]
[http://www.isi.edu/~blythe/papers/pdf/planet-ws00.pdf PLANET: A Shareable and Reusable Ontology for Representing Plans]
[[Shadow Planning]]
[http://www.slideshare.net/ahmad1957/an-ontological-formalization-of-the-planning-task-presentation An Ontological Formalization of the Planning Task]

Latest revision as of 23:21, 1 July 2018

Joint Doctrine Ontology Project

Background of this project

This project is carried out under two Rome Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) initiatives MAMA" and "Living Plan".The project is directed by Barry Smith.

Publication

Peter Morosoff, Ron Rudnicki, Jason Bryant, Robert Farrell, Barry Smith, “Joint Doctrine Ontology: A Benchmark for Military Information Systems Interoperability”, Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security (STIDS), CEUR, 2015

Goal

The goal of this project is to create a formal representation of the content of (selected parts of) Doctrine.

Examples of potential uses

1. to doctrine authors:

- enabling the creation of flexible visualizations of how different parts of doctrine interact, or of doctrinal content relevant to particular types of operations or capabilities
- allowing a tracing of dependences between definitions that can help to ensure that changes in definitions cascade appropriately through all dependent definitions when revisions are made

2. to doctrine users:

- enabling more effective discovery of doctrinal knowledge in forms useful for computational reasoning
- providing for each term in the DoD Dictionary its own web page, serving as a repository of usage and of revision history,

3. in the form of new uses for the content of doctrine

- allowing the DoD Dictionary to serve as entry point for web-based searches across multiple repositories of authoritative data
- facilitating greater coordination of training and operations particularly as these involve IT systems working alongside human beings
- increasing automation of processes such as plan specification, ops assessment, BlueForce Status, and scenario development
- allowing new sorts of assessment processes, for example based on measures of adherence to doctrine, processes which may in turn give rise to new ways of computationally identifying areas where changes in doctrine may be needed

4. to facilitate communication

- for example between intelligence analysts and the warfighters who are users of intelligence data

The Joint Doctrine Ontology will provide a new source of ground truth for ontologists across DoD and IC that will help to identify gaps and errors in existing military ontologies. It will thereby support consistent agile ontology development of a sort that will counteract current tendencies towards silo-formation and failure of interoperation.

Work plan

The project will begin with a small number of modules focusing on:

1. Capstone (Task, Function and Mission) (JP 1)
2. Planning (JP 5-0)
3. Civil Operations (JP 3-57)
4. Space Operations (JP 3-14)
5. Air Mobility Operations (JP 3-17)
TBD: Operational Environment
TBD: Transport (4-01)
TBD: Sustainment

Initially we are focusing on

A. review of existing definitions to identify taxonomic relations.
B. exploring the role of Joint Doctrine and more specific doctrinal publications (for example the relation between the Joint Dictionary (JP 1-02) and the Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1-02, or between Joint Planning and Airforce Planning ([1])

Issues to be addressed:

Relation to existing efforts, especially:
BML and C-BML
See presentation here
The role of ontology fragments to be reused in different areas of doctrine, for example pertaining to PMESII-PT

Information on Joint Doctrine

Joint Electonic Library

Joint Doctrine Hierarchy

DoD Dictionary of Military Terms

DoctrineLink

CJCSI 5705.01D (10 November 2010) Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, especially Enclosure C

Universal Joint Task List (UJTL)

Joint Doctrine Development Process

Joint Concept for Logistics

Jointness: A Selected Bibliography

Related efforts

Data Science for Joint Doctrine

JFACC Ontology

Acquisition Community Connection

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 119: Federal Participation in Development and Use of Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities

U.S. Army Unified Land Operations, with Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1-02: Operational Terms and Military Symbol

Joint Capability Areas

National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)

Joint Information Environment (JIE)

DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF)

Data Services Environnent (DSE): DoDI 8320.02, “Sharing Data, Information, and Information Technology (IT) Services in the Department of Defense.”

Global Force Management (GFM)

GFM Data Initiative

Based on the authoritative guidance in the following issuances:

DoDI 8260.03: The Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI)
DoD Manual (DoDM) 8260.03, Volume 1: The Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: Unique Identification (UID) for GFM
DoDM 8260.03 Volume 2: Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: The Organizational and Force Structure Construct (OFSC)

Planning

Making Plans Alive

Improving Coalition Planning by Making Plans Alive

APEX and GFM

The Downfall of Adaptive Planning

Marine Corps Planning Process

Thomas Cleary, Military Decision Making Process: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Introduction to Plans and Orders

A Computational Framework for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation

Planning for Planners

PLANET: A Shareable and Reusable Ontology for Representing Plans

Shadow Planning

An Ontological Formalization of the Planning Task

Retrieved from "https://ncorwiki.buffalo.edu/index.php?title=Joint_Doctrine_Ontology&oldid=70344"