... which systems must implement which combination of extension ontologies to meet the requirements of the confederation.
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.
To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM list, click the following link: