Ontology of Military Planning and Operations Assessment: Difference between revisions

From NCOR Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''The Living Plan'''
:Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.
----
Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 [http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/ Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security] (STIDS) Conference
Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 [http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/ Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security] (STIDS) Conference
*Date: November 18, 2014
*Date: November 18, 2014
Line 13: Line 17:
:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
::An Example: The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus
::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
:Need for a plan ontology as part of a suite of interoperable military ontology modules
:Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture
:Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture
Line 20: Line 23:
::The Information Artifact Ontology
::The Information Artifact Ontology
::Anatomy of a plan specification
::Anatomy of a plan specification
:Elements of the planning process
:Elements of the planning process: Informational, Mental, Action-related
::Information elements
::Mental elements
::Action-related elements
:(Hidden slides on the ontology of deontic elements)
:What is the living plan?
:What is the living plan?
:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology
:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology based on military doctrine
::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]
::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]
::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/1-Smith-2.pptx
::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/1-Smith-2.pptx here]


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]
Line 42: Line 41:
   
   
15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/3-Thomsen.pptx Slides]
15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/3-Thomsen.pptx Slides]
:Realizing a computational framework for the living plan
:Motivations and approach
:Modules (phases in the cycle):
:Types
::Situational Awareness
:Typed ontologies
::Plan Development
:Typed Ontology-driven planning systems
::Plan Review and Selection
:Conclusions
::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
16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants
16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants
:Exploratory session to allow critical review, presentation of alternative approaches, identification of potential secondary uses  
:Exploratory session to allow critical review, presentation of alternative approaches, identification of potential secondary uses  


----
'''Background'''
'''Background'''


*[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/document_ontology/ Document Acts]
*[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/document_ontology/ Document Acts]
*[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft-2014-09-23.xlsx Planning Ontology Draft (.xlsx)]
*[http://ncorwiki.buffalo.edu/index.php/Distributed_Development_of_a_Shared_Semantic_Resource#Publications Papers on Military Ontology]
*[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl Planning Ontology Draft (.owl)]
*[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl Planning Ontology Draft (.owl)]
*[http://milportal.ncor.buffalo.edu/ontologies Military Ontologies]
*[http://milportal.ncor.buffalo.edu/ontologies Military Ontologies]

Latest revision as of 15:05, 30 November 2014

The Living Plan

Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.

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
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: Informational, Mental, Action-related
What is the living plan?
Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology based on military doctrine
See current version of the ontology here
See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution here

13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) Slides

The current state of planning
Strategic level
Operations level
Ops assessment
Re-tasking
What works; what doesn’t
What’s needed

14:40 Break

15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) Slides

Motivations and approach
Types
Typed ontologies
Typed Ontology-driven planning systems
Conclusions

16:30 BS, FR, ET 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).