1. Base Object Model (BOM) Product Development Group A B C X Conceptual Federate Federation

2. BOM History 1998200220002003 Reference FOM Study Group BOM Methodology Strawman SRML Rapidly composable and scalable M&S 2001 BOM Study Group 1996 RPR FOM 20101999 HLA 1516 FOM “piece parts” (FEDEP, OMT) BOM PDG 2004 SISO-STD-003-xxxx BOM Template Spec BOM Spec Guidance Doc SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide for BOM Use and Implementation 2006… Tools Components Libraries HLA 1516 Evolve DIS HLA 1990 FEDEP 1516 C M S E Protocol Oriented WSDL Schemas XSLT DTD SOAP Object-Based OrientedComponent/Service Oriented

3. BOM Community Involvement 162 38

4. BOM PDG Officers –Larry Root (Chair) –Bob Lutz (Vice-Chair) –Jane Bachman (Secretary) –Chris Rouget (SAC TAD) DG Team –Paul Gustavson (Lead Editor) –Björn Löfstrand –Steve Goss –Steve Reichenthal –Roy Scrudder –Jake Borah –Tram Chase Assigned Reviewers –George Hughes –Staffan Löf –Mark McAuliffe –Chris Rouget –Reed Little –Mark Biwer Officers, Editors, Reviewers

5. BOM PDG Goals and Activities  Develop a Specification for Base Object Models  The open standardization of BOMs is essential  Broad participation required to mature the BOM specification to a point where it can survive the Balloting & Acceptance Processes  Specification format will follow: SISO-ADM-005-Draft-V0.8 Guide For SISO Standards Style “Trial Use” Period Completed Summer 2004  Based on SAC TC 20 May 2003 meeting, go-ahead given to publish standard as a “Trial-Use” Standard and conduct a trial use “Trial Use” Period Completed Summer 2004  Effort includes a Guidance Document and a Specification numbered as follows: SISO-STD-003-xxxx Base Object Model (BOM) Template SpecificationSISO-STD-003-xxxx Base Object Model (BOM) Template Specification SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide For BOM Use and Implementation:SISO-STD-003.1-xxxx Guide For BOM Use and Implementation: –addresses the “how to” in generating BOMs and the “how to” in piecing them together into BOM-assemblies in order to produce a SOM and/or FOM

6. BOM PDG Development Process 3 Standard Put Out for Community Review via SISO Reflectors 3 4 DG Collates Comments and Formulates Responses 4 5 PDG Meeting Held To Formally Adjudicate Comments and Responses 5 6 DG Incorporates Only Approved Comments Into Standard 6 7 AR Team Reviews Updated Standard for Verification of Changes 7 1 Assigned Reviewers (AR) Team Nominated and Approved 1 2 DG Stands Up Baseline Standard 2 Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG Deems Ready for Balloting 9 9 BOM SISO-STD-003.1 Development Cycle 8 Steps 1 through 7 Repeated Until PDG Deems Ready for “Trial-Use” Period (Complete) 8

7. - Start Process April 12 th, 2003 - Round 1 (30 days) – October 17 th, 2003 – 136 Comments (71t/65e) - Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 18 th, 2004 – 112 Comments (50t/62e) - Trial Use (120 days) – July 23 rd, 2004 – 42 Comments (24t/17e) - Round 3 (30 days) – Feb 11 th, 2005 – 132 Comments (79t/53e) - Round 4 (20 days) – July 5 th, 2005 – 23 Comments (16t/7e) - Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9 th, 2005 – 141 Comments (51t/90e) SISO-STD-003 BOM Spec Total of 568 Comments Addressed SISO-STD-003.1 BOM Guide Total of 437 Comments Addressed - Start Process May 25 th, 2004 - Round 1 (30 days) – July 23 rd, 2004 – 75 Comments (30t/45e) - Round 2 (30 days) – Feb 11 th, 2005 – 202 Comments (64t/138e) - Round 3 (20 days) – July 5 th, 2005 – 13 Comments (3t/10e) - Balloting (30 days) – Nov 9 th, 2005 – 137 Comments (25t/112e) Averaging 4-months / Spiral or Review Cycle t-technical e-editorial

8. Ballot Pool  The Ballot Group Notification went out Aug 14, 2004 and Closed Sept 14, 2004 38 Ballot Pool Members Ballot Pool is Balanced in All Categories: Representation Categories: Commercial, Government, Academic –Each must make up at least 10% but not more than 75% of Pool –We have: C=52.6% G=26.3% A=21.1% Organization –No one organization shall represent more than 25% of a representation category –Our Break Down is on the next slide w/ Highest Representation Coming from SimVentions at 15% of Commercial Interest Categories: User, Developer, General –No Interest category shall exceed 50% of the balloting group –We have: U=34.2% D=44.7% G=21.1% Ballot Pool was Sent to SAC and Approved

9. US DoD –ARMY –NAVY –AIR FORCE –DMSO Defense Research & Development Canada Ministry of Defense UK IEEE Academia –University of Texas - Applied Research Lab –John Hopkins University - Applied Physics Lab –University of Pennsylvania –Carnegie Mellon University - System Engineering Institute –Naval Postgraduate School –Old Dominion University Host of Large & Small Business Boeing SAIC Raytheon GD-AIS BAE BMH AEgis SimVentions SRI TAC-Eng PiTCH Preforce Consultants USA United Kingdom Sweden Germany Canada France Organizations Companies Countries Overall PDG Is Even More Diverse! Overall PDG Is Even More Diverse! Ballot Pool

10. Ballot Results  Overall Ballot Results: 36 of the 38 ballot pool members responded. That is a 94.74% overall response from the balloters. We had 35 accept/reject votes and 1 abstention (Guide) We had 36 accept/reject votes (Standard) This means the product ballot process is valid because we have met the two requirements per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6: minimum ballot return percentage of 75% – we hit 94.74%; and, less than 30% abstention – we had 1 abstention (2.63%) on the Guidance Document.  From this point forward, the percentage-computations are to be based on the total number of accept/reject votes received (per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6) – which is 35 for the Guidance and 36 for the Specification.  For the Guidance Document: 17 of the 35 voted to accept (48.57%) 17 of the 35 voted to accept w/comment (48.57%) Overall 34 of 35 votes for acceptance (97.14%) 1 of the 35 voted to reject with comment (2.86%) Ballot result for the Guidance document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot: at least 65% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.14%  For the Specification: 16 of the 36 voted to accept. That is a 44.44% response to accept 19 of the 36 voted to accept with comment. That is a 52.77% response to accept with comment The above two provides an overall 35 of 36 votes for acceptance. That is a 97.21% response to accept 1 of the 36 voted to reject with comment. That is a 2.77% response to reject with comment This means that the ballot result for the Specification document has met the requirement for a valid and successful ballot per SISO BPDP Section 4.3.6: at least 75% of the accept/reject ballots must be for accept – we hit 97.21%.

11. Spec –18 different commenters –141 comments 29 Basic Editorial comments (#1) 58 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5) 50 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2) 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3) 3 General comments (#4) Guide –14 different commenters –137 comments 66 Basic Editorial comments (#1) 38 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5) 24 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2) 1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3) 8 General comments (#4) Total –278 comments Ballot Comments All 278 Comments Have Been Successfully Adjudicated per BPDP Rules

12. BOM (Base Object Model) PDG Ballot Successful – Comments Adjudicated – Final Submission Package In – SAC/EXCOM Approved!!  Submit Products to SAC and EXCOM for ‘Approval to Ballot’ Sept’05 – SAC/TAD Sept’05 – SAC/TAD  Formulate The Ballot Group Aug 15 to Sept 14 – SAC/TAD (30-day minimum – SAC Approval Received) Aug 15 to Sept 14 – SAC/TAD (30-day minimum – SAC Approval Received) Sept’05 – PDG Face-to-Face - Fall’05 SIW – PANEL Session Sept’05 – PDG Face-to-Face - Fall’05 SIW – PANEL Session Oct’05 – Release V0.12 as candidate standards Oct’05 – Release V0.12 as candidate standards  Conduct The Initial Ballot Nov’05 – TAD/PDG (30-day) - Both Spec and Guide Nov’05 – TAD/PDG (30-day) - Both Spec and Guide  Resolve Ballot Group Comments Nov/Dec’05 PDG Comments Received & Processed Nov/Dec’05 PDG Comments Received & Processed Jan’06 – PDG Face-to-Face and Teleconference, all comments successfully adjudicated Jan’06 – PDG Face-to-Face and Teleconference, all comments successfully adjudicated  Conduct Re-Circulation Ballot Not Needed Not Needed  Closure Activities Feb’06 – SAC/TAD/PDG Feb’06 – SAC/TAD/PDG  Submit Balloted Product to SAC and EXCOM for ‘Approval as SISO Product’ Mar’06 – TAD/SAC/EXCOM Mar’06 – TAD/SAC/EXCOM  Post SISO Community Announcement April’06 – SAC April’06 – SAC BPDP Step 3 BPDP Step 4 BPDP SISO-STD-003-2006! BOM Template SpecificationSISO-STD-003.1-2006! Guide for BOM Use & Implementation PDG Session – Spring’06 SIW Tuesday, 8:00am-12:00 Room - Salon 6A What’s Next – The SSG & Managing Steps 5 and 6

13. 03S SIW PDG Kick-off Aug 21st 2003 DG Face-to-Face Guide & Vol 1 03F SIW Establish Assigned Reviewers 04S SIW Guide Vol/Vol II July 2004 DG/PDG Face-to-Face Guide/Vol/Vol II 04F SIW Vol 1 In Trial Use Guide Reviewed Tools Available 05S SIW Guide & Spec Adjudication BOM Tutorial 06S SIW Guide & Specification Completes SAC/EXCOM Review SISO Standardization Achieved! BOM Tutorial Overall Schedule Oct 2003, Release Vol 1 for Review(1) www.boms.info www.boms.info established Jan 2006 Face-to-Face and TC Ballot Comment Adjudication completed May 2004 Release Guide For Review(1) Developed & Presented BOM Tutorial Jan 2005 DG/PDG Face-to-Face Guide & Vol I & Vol II Vol I and II united into a Single Specification RPR-BOMs available June 2005 EuroSIW BOM/HLA-E Coord July 2005 Spec Review(4) Guide Review(3) Nov/Dec 05 Ballot Conducted Ballot Successful Mar 2006 Product Approval Package sent to SAC and EXCOM Feb 2004, Release Vol 1 for Review(2) July 2004 Release Guide for Review(1) Vol I Enters Trial Use BOMworks Tool Available Feb 2005, Release Spec Review(3) Guide Review(2) 05F SIW Guide & Spec Ballot Pool Formed BOM Tutorial

14. Related BOM Efforts Web-based Survey http://www.boms.info/blog http://www.boms.info websitehttp://www.boms.info –BOM Specs & Related Documents –BOM Information –BOM History –BOM Current Activities –BOM PDG Reflector –BOM FAQ BOM Tutorial Resource CDs RPR BOMs Tools –BOMworks™ –Visual OMT™ WinterSim’04 I/ITSEC ’04 Conference 2005 EuroSIW Give us your Input and Thoughts! Affect the Direction of BOMs Give us your Input and Thoughts! Affect the Direction of BOMs Go! – Read! – Interact! Get Answers! Ask Questions! Provide Input! This is The Library Go! – Read! – Interact! Get Answers! Ask Questions! Provide Input! This is The Library Get Training! Tools are Arriving! Use Them – Build Them – Improve Them Tools are Arriving! Use Them – Build Them – Improve Them Wider Visibility!

15. Federate (SOM) BOM Assembly BOM 1 BOM 3 BOM n Composite Interface Composition Sim / System A Representation Federation (FOM) Federate B Federate X Federate A Aggregation Model #1 Model #2 Model #3 Model #n - or - Theater Warfare Representation BOM 2 BOMs are designed for enabling composability, providing extensibility, facilitating interoperability, improving manageability, and encouraging understandibility. BOM Palette -x Choose what fits conceptual model? A B C X State Machines Pattern of Interplay Events User Requirements Simulation Components Simulation Systems foms federates BOM – a piece part of a conceptual model, simulation object model, or federation object model, which can be used as a building block in the development and/or extension of a simulation or federation. Weapons Effect Radio Comms Repair Resupply Detect / Jam DefinitionConceptProducts Illustration Improving Composability in the World of Modeling and Simulation Using Base Object Models (BOMs) as Building Blocks