Ontology of Military Planning and Operations Assessment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*Venue: Dewberry Hall, [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Johnson+Center,+George+Mason+University,+Fairfax,+VA+22030/@38.8300726,-77.3077621,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b64e60e8f5562f:0x1d78172a5be4946 Johnson Center, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030] | *Venue: Dewberry Hall, [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Johnson+Center,+George+Mason+University,+Fairfax,+VA+22030/@38.8300726,-77.3077621,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b64e60e8f5562f:0x1d78172a5be4946 Johnson Center, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030] | ||
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' | 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''' | '''Schedule''' | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Gap assessment | :Gap assessment | ||
:Need: Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi-level planning agencies | :Need: Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi-level planning agencies | ||
13:50 Barry Smith | 13:50 Barry Smith | ||
Revision as of 16:19, 19 October 2014
Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security (STIDS) Conference
- Date: November 18, 2014
- Time: 13:00 - 18:00
- Venue: Dewberry Hall, Johnson Center, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030
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 Erik Thomsen
- 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
13:50 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
- Role of doctrine (C2W, Joint Planning)
- Role of speech act theory and document act theory
- Document Control Ontology
- How actions control documents
- How documents control documents
- How documents control actions
- The orchestral score and its subscores
- Document Control Ontology
- Plans vs Plan specifications
- Anatomy of a plan specification
14:40 Break
15:00 Barry Smith
- Introduction to the ontology of plans and of operations assessment rooted in the Information Artifact Ontology
15:50 Erik Thomsen
- 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
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
- Document Acts
- Joint Operation Planning
- Command and Control of Joint Air Operations (JP 3.30)
- Joint Doctrine for Command and Control Warfare (JP 3.13.1)
Faculty
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).
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.
