On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:13 AM Blais, Curtis (Curt) (CIV) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> ... which systems must implement which combination of extension ontologies
> to meet the requirements of the confederation.
>

Yes, interesting. I can imagine a C2 system that doesn't require any
initialization like a simulation, and will only issue orders and accept
position reports. There could be a number of classes it doesn't care about,
like say orientation or DIS Entity Type. On the other hand, a
platform-level simulation would be given object initialization messages
that contain orientations and DIS entity types, so it should recognize
them. But maybe it is just simulating civilians who don't report to a
command structure, so it does not need to accept orders or generate
reports. So a system in a C2SIM coalition may safely ignore a variety of
messages or data in messages, and yet  successfully fulfill its role in the
coalition.

I think the safest thing is to go with 3a. What this implies is that any C2
or Simulation initialization information *required *by that system, and any
C2 information that *must be sent or received* by that system, must use a
C2SIM LDM (Core or extension), as specified.

Doug


>
> Curt
>
>
>
> *From:* SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Pullen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 6:52 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: C2SIM pre-balloting issue: compliance criterion
>
>
> 3. I'll illustrate here a range of compliance descriptions we might
> consider:
>
> a. We could say that every single class in the C2SIM ontologies and all of
> their properties *must* be implemented for full compliance. (If we don't
> define C2SIM compliance in the standard, I guess this would be the
> default.) But this definition this could work against adoption of C2SIM
> because there could be classes in the ontologies that define data which may
> not be meaningful to all systems. For example, in yesterday's meeting we
> discussed EntityType which could be APP6-SIDC or DISEntityType and
> concluded they should both be in the ontology; but DISEntityType is
> unlikely to be used in a C2 system while APP6-SIDC might be of no interest
> to a simulation.
>
> b. We could, as I suggested in previous message, identify some classes
> without which we consider interoperation to be meaningless and identify
> them in the ontology. This would allow compliance at multiple levels: Core,
> SMX and LOX.
>
> --

*Dr. Douglas Reece* |  Principal Engineer
*VT MÄK  | *150 Cambridge Park Drive, Third Floor, Cambridge, MA 02140
T: +1.857.209.3483  |
[log in to unmask]  |  www.mak.com

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM&A=1