Paul Gustavson had an interesting proposal a little while back, which
was to structure SISO around the FEDEP itself. That is, get broad
community buy-in on a common process model for our user base, and then
1) solicit papers which discuss implementations of the process across
various user groups and 2) encourage standards and tool development
efforts which enable key FEDEP activities. Thus, we might have tracks
set up around the core steps (like maybe one for requirements
development/conceptual modeling, another for federation design, another
for federation development/implementation, and one for federation
execution, data analysis, and AAR). Papers would be presented according
to the activities they support (similar to today's specialty forums) or
to the domain they support (like today's user forums). We could get a
lot of really good case studies emphasizing SISO success stories this
way, as people would focus on the FEDEP/DSEEP as the way they think
about and describe their applications. In terms of standards, we could
ask new start-up PDGs to identify the gap (in terms of process enablers)
it is proposing to fill through their effort, which the SAC would then
verify as a real community need before approving TORs. Tool developers
could be explicit in terms of the FEDEP/DSEEP activities it supports,
and how they support it. Thus, the FEDEP/DSEEP could provide an
integrating function that gives better structure to the workshop,
provides explicit rationale for new standards efforts, and a common
framework from which we could associate GOTS/COTS tools with required
tasks and activities.

While I've always liked this idea, I also have thought that getting
EXCOM/CC/SAC buy-in to such a radical restructuring was in the "too hard
to do" category. Anyway, it is an interesting idea, and I would
certainly be a supporter if anyone wanted to push something like this



From: SAC-PDG-FEDEP: Bjoern Moeller
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:33 AM
Subject: Getting people to use FEDEP

From: "Bjoern Moeller" ([log in to unmask])

*** This message was generated from SAC-PDG-FEDEP ***

Here is a recap of what I said at the EuroSIW FEDEP discussion:

We have some great standards for simulation interoperability but
they aren't used to the extent that they deserve.

Most, or all, of us in this business: users, vendors,
government, academia, have a strong interest in users being successful
in their development of interoperable simulation systems. If we see a
large number of successful use cases based on standards this makes a
great business case for organizations like SISO.

Many projects, maybe even the majority of all projects, if you
look worldwide, would be significantly more successful if they used a
process like FEDEP that provides guidelines, captures a lot of
best-practice and gets people to "solve the right problems in the right
order". How can we get there?

First of all: better marketing of SISO and SISO standards. The
low attendance at the recent EuroSIW shows that SISO needs to do a
better job here. I know that there are thousands of professionals in
Europe for which this event could have been highly interesting. But
that's another story that I will be happy to pass on to EXCOM.

For the FEDEP standard I think that more practical guidance is
needed. Some examples from somewhat related areas that I have found
useful over the years are:

A) The book "Implementing the IEEE Software Engineering
Standards" by Michael E C Schmidt contains a "Pyramid of applicability"
that describes how and when to use the different standards depending on
the size and scope of the project (one man-week project or 200 man-year
project). The first level, applicable to all projects, is to decide on a
life-cycle model using a life-cycle process standard. The second level,
for a rather small project, is to capture requirements and test cases.

Would it be possible to provide more guidance on when and how to
use our standards?

B) Another example is the Word templates that you can find for,
for example, the IEEE Software Requirements Specification. It contains a
number of guiding texts that helps people getting started.

Would it be possible to provide this type of template for
Federation Agreements and other important documents throughout FEDEP?

Bjorn M

"Pitch GE Adapter - Put Your Simulation on the Google Earth Map"

Bjvrn Mvller, Pitch Technologies, Nygatan 35, SE-58219
Linkvping, Sweden
E-mail: [log in to unmask], Web:, tel:+46 (0)13
13 45 45

To reply: [log in to unmask]
people to use FEDEP>
To start a new topic: [log in to unmask]
To view discussion:

To (un)subscribe: Send a message to
[log in to unmask] with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.
Important: the unsubscribe email needs to be in plain text
format, and needs to have no subject line.


To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-DSEEP list, click the following link: