Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) Study Group Final Report

The objective of Battle Management Language (BML) is to define an unambiguous language to describe a commander’s intent, to be understood by both live forces and automated systems, for simulated and realworld operations. The resulting language is intended to be applicable not only to simulation systems, but also to operational command and control systems, and robotic systems. Within the last three years, multiple papers presented at the Simulation Interoperability Workshops (SIW) have dealt with the need for, and initial work in, Modeling & Simulation (M&S) to Command and Control (C2) Interoperability based on the use of unambiguous mission and task definitions. During the Spring 2004 SIW, a meeting of subject matter experts determined that a detailed evaluation of BML efforts at a Coalition level is necessary and subsequently drafted Terms of Reference (TOR) for a Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) Study Group. The TOR for the Coalition BML (C-BML) Study Group was accepted by the SISO Standards Activity Committee and identifies the following tasks: • The Study Group shall conduct a Survey comprising as many international contributions applicable to the Coalition BML effort as possible. • The Study Group shall develop a plan for how these various efforts can contribute to a common Coalition BML specification within a methodological framework. • The Study Group shall formulate a set of Recommendations for a Coalition BML Product Development Group (PDG). The Coalition BML Study Group was subsequently formed in September 2004 to address these tasks. The Study Group has conducted a number of face-to-face and teleconference meetings through the year since the Fall 2004 SIW, involving a membership of over 100 persons from 11 different countries. This paper is an executive summary of the full Study Group Final Report. As the Study Group concludes, it recommends that a PDG be formed. The C-BML Study Group has worked closely with the Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) Study Group to coordinate both PDG proposals to ensure a consistent set of standards for initialization, tasking and reporting.

[1]  Ulrich Schade,et al.  Beyond information extraction: The role of ontology in military report processing , 2004 .

[2]  Michael R. Hieb,et al.  Developing Battle Management Language into a Web Service , 2004 .

[3]  Marnie R. Salisbury,et al.  MITRE INFORMAL REPORT Synthetic Theater of War Project Modeling and Simulation Technical Center Command Forces ( CFOR ) Program Status Report , 1996 .

[4]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Integrating Air and Ground Operations Within a Common Battle Management Language , 2005 .

[5]  Coronado Bay Resort.  Extensible Battle Management Language (XBML): A Methodology for Web Enabling Command and Control for Network Centric Warfare , 2004 .

[6]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Report Out of the C4I Study Group , 2001 .

[7]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Ideas for a Common Framework for Military M&S and C3I Systems , 2003 .

[8]  Bo Sun,et al.  Web Services based on the C2IEDM - Data Mediation and Data Storage , 2005 .

[9]  Lashon B. Booker,et al.  Command Forces: An Extension of DIS Virtual Simulation , 2007 .

[10]  Martin S. Kleiner,et al.  Communication mission-type orders to virtual commanders , 1998, 1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274).

[11]  M. Hieb,et al.  Merging National Battle Management Language Initiatives for NATO Projects , 2004 .

[12]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model , 2003 .

[13]  William Andersen,et al.  An Ontology of Modern Military Organizations and their Structure , 2001 .

[14]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[15]  Leo Obrst,et al.  The Semantic Web: A Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services and Knowledge Management , 2003 .

[16]  Marcus Brohede,et al.  Information Fusion from Databases, Sensors and Simulations: Annual Report 2007 , 2006 .

[17]  Michael R. Hieb,et al.  A Methodology for Doctrine in Modeling and Simulation: Battle Management Language (BML) and the Mission to Means Framework (MMF) , 2004 .

[18]  Leslie S. Winters,et al.  The Integration of Modeling and Simulation with Joint Command and Control on the Global Information Grid , 2005 .

[19]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Coalition Battle Management Language , 2004 .

[20]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Taxonomies, Ontologies, Battle Management Languages - Recommendations for the Coalition BML Study Group , 2005 .

[21]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Taxonomies, Ontologies, and Battle Management Language - Recommendations for the Coalition BML Stud , 2005 .

[22]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  Developing Extensible Battle Management Language to Enable Coalition Interoperability , 2004 .

[23]  Israel Mayk,et al.  Experimenting with C2 Applications and Federated Infrastructures for Integrated Full-Spectrum Operational Environments in Support of Collaborative Planning and Interoperable Execution , 2004 .

[24]  Dr Håkan Warston,et al.  Ground surveillance and fusion of ground target sensor data in a Network Based Defense , 2004 .

[25]  S. Carey,et al.  Standardizing Battle Management Language – Facilitating Coalition Interoperability , 2002 .

[26]  C. Pollard,et al.  Center for the Study of Language and Information , 2022 .

[27]  Per M. Gustavsson,et al.  The road towards multi-hypothesis intention simulation agents architecture - fractal information fusion modeling , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[28]  J. Bresnan.  Lexical-Functional Syntax , 2000 .

[29]  Terry D. Norbraten.  Utilization of Forward Error Correction (FEC) Techniques With Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema-Based Binary Compression (XSBC) Technology , 2004 .