RFOM Definition to Develop John Hancock <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind9710%26L%3DZ-ARCHIVE-SIW-RFOM%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D143380%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a> <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind9710%26L%3DZ-ARCHIVE-SIW-RFOM%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D143380%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>
By: John P. Hancock, RFOM study group lead
October 20, 1997

Reference FOM (RFOM) Definitions Posed to the RFOM reflector:

As decided by the RFOM study group at RFOM telecon-1 held on October 17
1997,  the group decided to establish a spanning, but small set of
possible definitions for RFOMS.  This is the initial cut at those
definitions.  Each initial definition will subsequently be elaborated on
by RFOM SG volunteers.

I have tried to boil the RFOM reflector traffic regarding definition of
terminology and preliminary implications to standardization into a
manageable number of possibilities.  If anyone sees any significantly
different opinions that I missed please feel free to suggest them.
Also, if I managed to misrepresent anyones suggestion, please feel free
to suggest augmentations to these definitions.

I have chosen a simple approach to grouping the inputs, and generally
describing each with the FEWEST WORDS POSSIBLE!  I have not set out to
build the definitions, only to classify them.  I provide references to
reflector traffic to justify/explain my condensation of the "heady"
thought sources.

1) Community Guidance Document:  Howard opens the discussion of a FOM as
a guidance document which provides potential interoperability within an
Interest Group.  McAndrew follows that this guidance should form a
Common Starting Point for forming a Federation.  Howard follows this
with an argument on the difficulty of standardization.  Kramers
argument for slow standardization to allow for consensus, and annealing
of FOMs may also fit here, although it would argue for the least amount
of formalism in the FOM control.  See Howards definition points.
2) Lowest Common Denominator: OConnor postulates this LCD as the Base
Capability of Interoperability which needs a formal standards process to
be effective.  Golubic seconds this approach.  OConnor applies Howards
argument of "Neuteral Fit" standardization.  Myjack and Petty argue that
such an LCD FOM must be applicable to a significant portion of the
community, implementable,   Also see Myjacks cut at a definition!
3) Common Conception of a RFOM:  Everyones whipping horse!  (Dannie
Cutts would say that there is no horse so dead that you cant whip it a
little more. ;-)  A Standard FOM which can be inflicted on poor
unsuspecting Federation developer/executers
4) Base Object Models (and the overly demeaned FOMLet): OConnor,
Hancock, Saunders and others postulate FOMlets, (which I shall
henceforth call BOMs (Gustavson, love that!)) as reusable partial SOM
integrations which can be mixed and matched during Federation
development.  Gustavson besides providing an awesome name for this RFOM,
compares it to other standards (e.g. RAD).  Saunder takes it further,
into the FEDEP (more on that later).  Hancock wants at least this, if
not hierarchy and metainformation.  See 5.
5) Super FOM:  Hancock, and Saunder build on the BOM(lets?) to form
reusable components of Federation integration which can be
(automatically?) put into a FOM like a jigsaw puzzle to form the
required Federation integration.  This approach is highly intertwined
with the FEDEP, and attempts to achieve the goals of HLA simulation
reuse across community boundaries.  Certain FEDEP tool builders also see
the appeal of such models.  This model may intersect the boundary into
the DMSO HLA OM library or data standards activities.

Sorry if I missed anyone.  I also apologize for selectively snipping
other peoples moments of genius to try to find domain neutral
terminology wo that we could remove the sensationalism (except 3) from
the definitions.  Remember that we are supposed to define and possibly
provide terminology  I hope I credited correctly.

Gee, it seems that in the process of outlining, grouping, and
referencing these, I seemed to have pointed the fickle finger of
interest and responsibility   ;-)

We need to refine this by Thurs AM.
Hear you at the telecon.

"Developing Cutting-Edge Systems Takes ArtisTech People!"
++--==++--==++--==++--==++--==++--==++--==++--==++--==++--=John P. Hancock, President, ArtisTech inc.
Phone: (703) 516-4500
Mailing Address: 4301 N. Fairfax dr., Suite1090, Arlington VA, 22203
Email: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe from the Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-RFOM list, click the following link: