1. Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences
Command and Control Ontology - Informal Technical Exchange - Use of Ontologies in a World in Flux National Center for Ontological Research (NCOR) Buffalo, NY, USA, January 15-16, 2009
Werner CEUSTERS, MD
Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences

2. Presentation overview
The SAS-050 approach to Command & Control
How the SAS-050 model relates to Basic Formal Ontology and Referent Tracking
Referent Tracking for C2
A battlefield scenario
Technical implementation of Referent Tracking
How Basic Formal Ontology and Referent Tracking meet the wish-list of SAS-050
Conclusion

3. Background for this presentation
EXPLORING NEW COMMAND AND CONTROL
CONCEPTS AND CAPABILITIES
Final Report
Prepared for NATO
January 2006

4. Three major dimensions:
SAS-050’s view on C2
Three major dimensions:
allocation of decision rights across an enterprise,
permissible interactions among entities within the enterprise and between enterprise entities and others,
the way information flows and is disseminated.

5. C2 in action

6. … in a world in flux
C2 in action

7. C2 in action
… in a world in flux
‘Ground truth’

8. Information and ground truth
C2 in action
Information and ground truth
‘Ground truth’
Information

9. Information and ground truth
C2 in action
Information and ground truth
Information
‘Ground truth’
How do they relate ?

10. SAS-050’s view on information and ground truth

11. Characteristics for Inf. Quality and Reality Perception
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Ambiguity: inability to make sense out of a situation, regardless of available INF.
Complexity: situation is being faced with a situation made up of an interrelated set of variables, solutions, and stakeholders, each individually understood but which together exceed the processing capacity of the individual, the team, or organisation to synthesize.
Equivocality: having multiple interpretations of the same INF.
Uncertainty: not having sufficient INF to describe a current state or to forecast future states, preferred outcomes, or the actions needed to achieve them.
Situational familiarity: the characteristic of having encountered or seen, or having knowledge of a situation.
Temporal focus: the time into the future of an understanding or plan.

12. Relationships between the SAS-050 objectives and Ontology / Referent Tracking

13. A Conceptual Model (CM) consisting of:
SAS-050 solution
A Conceptual Model (CM) consisting of:
A Reference Model containing over 300 variables and a selected subset of the possible relationships among them that were felt to be important to understand C2 and the implications of different approaches to C2.
A Value View which posits links in the value chain that lead from characteristics of the force and its approach to C2 to measures of mission and policy effectiveness, and finally to agility.

14. SAS-050’s view on ‘models’
A model is an abstraction of reality for a purpose, consisting of a subset of variables and relationships that represent reality “well enough.”
The variables found within the model are factors, characteristics, or attributes of an entity that can take on different values.
The variables within the model have a number of relationships that reflect connections between and among other variables.

15. The fit with Philosophical Realism
Three levels of reality:
First-order reality: what is on the side of persons, organizations, …
Cognitive representations: what cognitive agents assume to observe and know ‘in their mind’
Representational artefacts for communication, documentation, …
Terms, definitions, drawings, images, …
Assumption about the quality of an ontology: is at least determined by the accuracy with which its structure mimics the pre-existing structure of reality.
In SAS-050:
ground truth / situations
mental models
information
… about the model
acceptance
fit for purpose
never complete
Smith B, Kusnierczyk W, Schober D, Ceusters W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. Proceedings of KR-MED 2006, November 8, 2006, Baltimore MD, USA

16. Generic versus Specific entities
Basic Formal Ontology
Generic
Specific
Referent Tracking
3. Representation
‘weapon’
‘person’
‘tank’
‘John Doe’
‘Enola Gay’
2. Beliefs (knowledge)
GOAL
John Doe’s plan
SACEUR’s
strategy
ATTACK STRATEGY 1.
First-order reality
Private John Doe
building
PERSON
John Doe’s
platoon
John Doe’s gun
WEAPON
CORPSE
TANK
SOLDIER
Tank with serial number
TH1280A44V

17. A simple battlefield ontology
Spatial region
located-in
object
Ontology
weapon
vehicle
building
person
corpse
transforms-in
submachine
gun
mortar
tank
car
POW
soldier

18. Ontology used for ‘annotating’ a situation
building
person
vehicle
tank
soldier
POW
weapon
mortar
submachine
gun
car
object
corpse
Spatial region
located-in
transforms-in
Ontology
Situation

19. Referent Tracking in action

20. Referent Tracking (RT) for ‘representing’ a situation
Ontology #5 #6 #8 #7
uses
Situational
model #1 #2 #3 #4
#10
Situation

21. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity

22. Referent Tracking preserves identity
Ontology
use the same type of weapon
use the same weapon #6 #7 #8
Situational
model
uses
uses
uses #2
uses #3 #4
#10
Situation

23. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true

24. Specific relations versus generic relations
Ontology
faithful #5 #6 #8 #7
uses
Situational
model #1 #2 #3 #4
#10
Situation

25. Specific relations versus generic relations
Ontology
uses
NOT faithful
Situational
model
Situation

26. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true
Appropriate representation of the time when relationships hold

27. Temporal validity of specific relationships (1)
soldier
Ontology
private
sergeant
sergeant-major
at t1
at t2
at t3
Situational
model #3
Situation

28. Temporal validity of specific relationships (2)
Ontology #5 #6
uses
at t1
Situational
model
uses
at t1 #1 #2
Situation

29. Temporal validity of specific relationships (2)
Ontology
uses
at t2 #5
after the death of #1
Situational
model
at t2 #1 #2
Situation

30. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true
Appropriate representation of the time when relationships hold
Deals with conflicting representations by keeping track of sources

31. Source of information corpse #5 #6 #1 #2 Ontology Situational model
asserts at t2 #5 #6
uses
at t2
Situational
model
uses
at t1
uses
at t1
at t3 #1 #2
Situation

32. Source of information corpse #5 #6 #1 #2 Ontology Situational model
asserts at t4 #5 #6
uses
at t2
Situational
model
uses
at t1
uses
at t1
at t3 #1 #2
Situation

33. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true
Appropriate representation of the time when relationships hold
Deals with conflicting representations by keeping track of sources
Mimics the structure of reality

34. Referent Tracking and the structure of reality
Level 1, 2 or 3
Level 2 or 3
Level 3
Level 1
unique identifiers

35. Remind the 3-level distinction
#120: an incident that happened;
Level 2:
#213: the interpretation by some cognitive agent that #120 is an security breach;
#31: the expectation by some cognitive agent that similar incidents might happen in the future;
Level 3:
#402: an entry in and information system concerning #120;
#1503: an entry in some other information system about #31 for mitigation or prevention purposes.

36. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true
Appropriate representation of the time when relationships hold
Deals with conflicting representations by keeping track of sources
Mimics the structure of reality
Allows for corrections without distorting what was originally believed

37. Mismatches between reality and representations
Some possibilities:
#120 with unjustified absence of #213 :
#120 was not perceived at all, or not assessed as being a security breach
Unjustified presence of #213 :
There was no #120 at all, or #120 was not a security breach
Unjustified absence of #402
Same reasons as under (1) above
Justified presence of #213 but not reported in the information system …
Ceusters W, Smith B. A Realism-Based Approach to the Evolution of Biomedical Ontologies.
Proceedings of AMIA 2006, Washington DC, 2006;:

38. Multiple scenarios of co-existence
Past incident related
Mitigation related
breach happened
incident perception
Information system entry
Interpreted
Registered
Case
#120
#213
#402
#31
#1503 1 + - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Only cases 7 and 8 are faithful, justified presence and absence respectively

39. Need for change and belief management
Distinct sensors may hold different beliefs about whether a specific incident (e.g. #1)
really happened,
is of a specific sort,
counts as a security breach
depending on what definition or rules they apply.
They may differ in beliefs about
what caused the incident,
how to prevent future happenings of incidents of the same sort.
They may change their beliefs over time.

40. Keep in mind
Whether an incident is a security breach (under one or more definitions)
is a matter of objective fact,
is not a matter of consensus.
What are matters of consensus, are:
definitions for what should be counted security breaches
but,
they can be applied wrongly,
they can be themselves in error;
policies about registration,
policies about mitigation and prevention,
although, whether they are effective, is again a matter of objective fact.

41. Advantages of Referent Tracking
Preserves identity
Allows to assert relationships amongst entities that are not generically true
Appropriate representation of the time when relationships hold
Deals with conflicting representations by keeping track of sources
Mimics the structure of reality
Allows for corrections without distorting what was originally believed
Fully compatible with semantic web technologies

42. Implementing Referent Tracking

43. Explicit referential semantics through RT-tuples (1)
Situational model tuples
Tuple name Attributes Description
A-tuple
< IUIa, IUIp, tap>
Act of assignment of IUIp to a particular at time tap by the particular referred to by author IUIa
PtoP-tuple
<IUIa, ta, r, IUIo, P, tr>
The particular referred to by IUIa asserts at time ta that the relationship r from ontology IUIo obtains between the particulars referred to in the set of IUIs P at time tr.
PtoN
< IUIa, ta, ntj, ni, IUIp, tr, IUIc>
The particular referred to by IUIa asserts at time ta that ni is the name of the nametype ntj used by IUIc to denote the particular referred to by IUIp at tr.

44. Explicit referential semantics through RT-tuples (2)
Linking situational models with ontologies and terminologies
Tuple name Attributes Description
PtoU-tuple
<IUIa, ta, inst, IUIo, IUIp, UUI, tr>
The particular referred to by author IUIa asserts at time ta that the particular referred to by IUIp instantiates – by means of the inst relation defined in ontology IUIo – the universal UUI at time tr.
PtoC-tuple
<IUIa, ta, IUIc, IUIp, CUI, tr>
The particular referred to by IUIa asserts at time ta that at time tr concept code CUI from terminology system IUIc is an accurate term for IUIp
PtoU(-) -tuple
<IUIa, ta, r, IUIo, IUIp, UUI, tr>
The particular referred to by IUIa asserts at time ta that the relation r of ontology IUIo does not obtain at time tr between the particular referred to by IUIp and any of the instances of the universal denoted by UUI at time tr.

45. Explicit referential semantics through RT-tuples (3)
Validity and availability of information
Tuple name Attributes Description
D-tuple
< IUId, IUIA, td, E, C, S >
The particular referred to by IUId registers the particular referred to by IUIA (the IUI for the corresponding A-tuple) at time td. E is either the symbol ‘I’ (for insertion) or any of the error type symbols as defined in [1]. C is the reason for inserting the A-tuple. S is a list of IUIs denoting the tuples, if any, that replace the retired one.
A D-tuple is inserted:
to resolve mistakes in RTS, and
whenever a new tuple other than a D-tuple is inserted in the RTS.
[1] Ceusters W. Dealing with Mistakes in a Referent Tracking System. In: Hornsby KS (eds.) Proceedings of Ontology for the Intelligence Community 2007 (OIC-2007), Columbia MA, November 2007;:5-8.

46. Referent Tracking System Components
Referent Tracking Software
Manipulation of statements about facts and beliefs
Referent Tracking Datastore:
IUI repository
A collection of globally unique singular identifiers denoting particulars
Referent Tracking Database
A collection of facts and beliefs about the particulars denoted in the IUI repository
Manzoor S, Ceusters W, Rudnicki R. Implementation of a Referent Tracking System. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics 2007;2(4):41-58.

47. Referent Tracking System Environment

48. Networks of Referent Tracking systems

49. An example: Tracking a Request to View a Web Page

50. Tuple insertions A-tuples n IUIp IUIa tap Key 1 #24 #2
(EVENT("#24 assignment") has-occ AT TP(time-18))
#25 3
#27
(EVENT("#27 assignment") has-occ AT TP(time-20))
#28 9
#34
(EVENT("#34 assignment") has-occ AT TP(time-26))
#35
D-tuples n
IUId
IUIA td E C S
Key 2 #2
#25
(EVENT("#25 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-19)) I CE
#26 4
#28
(EVENT("#28 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-21))
#29 6
#30
(EVENT("#30 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-23))
#31 8
#32
(EVENT("#32 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-25))
#33 10
#35
(EVENT("#35 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-27))
#36 12
#37
(EVENT("#37 inserted") has-occ AT TP(time-29))
#38
PtoP-tuples n
IUIa ta r
IUIo P tr
Key 5 #2
(EVENT("#30 is asserted") has-occ AT TP(time-22))
MainContentCopyOf
#022
#27, #12
(EPISODE("#30 is true") has-occ SINCE TI(time-20))
#30 7
(EVENT("#32 is asserted") has-occ AT TP(time-24))
InstigatorOf
#24, #27
(EVENT ("#32 is true") has-occ AT TP(time-18))
#32 11
(EVENT("#37 is asserted") has-occ AT TP(time-28))
ChecksumOf
#34, #27
(EPISODE("#37 is true") has-occ SINCE TI(time-26))
#37

51. Another example: domotics and RFID systems
Avoiding adverse events in a hospital because of insufficient day/night illumination:
Light sensors and motion detectors in rooms and corridors
and representations thereof in an Adverse Event Management System (AEMS)
What are ‘sufficient’ illumination levels for specific sites is expressed in defined classes,
Each change in a detector is registered in real time in the AEMS,
Action-logic implemented in a rule-base system, f.i. to generate alerts.

52. RT-based representation (1): IUI assignment
Reality level 1
#1: that corridor
#2: that lamp
#3: that motion detector
#4: that light detector
#5: that RFID reader
#6: that patient with
RFID #7
#8: that RFID reader
#9: this elevator
#10: 2nd floor of clinic B

53. RT-based representation (2): relationships
(Semi-)stable relationships:
#1 instance-of ReM:Corridor since t1
#2 instance-of ReM:Lamp since t2
#2 contained-in #1 since t3
#6 member-of ReM:Patient since t4
#6 adjacent-to #7 since t4
#18 instance-of ReM:Illumination since t1
#18 inheres-in #1 since t1 …
Semi-stable because of:
lamps may be replaced
persons are not patients all the time
 keeping track of these changes provides a history for each tracked entity

54. RT-based representation (3): rule base *
Setting illumination requirements for lamp #2:
#18 member-of ReM:Insufficient illumination during ty if
tx part-of ReM:Daytime
#y1 instance-of ReM:Motion-detection
#y1 has-agent #3 at ty
ty part-of tx
#y2 instance-of ReM:Illumination measurement
#y2 has-agent #4 at ty
#y2 has-participant # at ty
#y2 has-result imrz at ty
imrz less-than 30 lumen
else
tx part-of ReM:Night time …
endif
* Exact format to be discussed with ReMINE partners

55. RT-based representation of events
Imagine #6 (with RFID #7) walking through #1
#2345 instance-of ReM:Motion-detection
#2345 has-agent #3 at t4
#2346 instance-of ReM:RFID-detection
#2346 has-agent #5 at t4
#2346 has-participant #7 at t4 …
Here, the happening of #2345 fires the rule explained on the previous slide.
If imrz turns out to be too low, that might invoke another rule which sends an alert to the ward that lamp #2 might be broken.
#2346 might trigger yet another rule, namely an alert for imminent danger for AE with respect to patient #6

56. (Focus on Information Quality)
Suitability of Basic Formal Ontology and Referent Tracking for a SAS-050 implementation
(Focus on Information Quality)

57. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Representation of need and relevance in ontologies, plans and policies,
INF accumulates in RT-tuples,
Accuracy and relevance computable over the difference between the former and the latter.

58. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Remain essentially unknown at T0,
Can for the past be calculated using:
Can be forecasted using:
Ceusters W. Applying Evolutionary Terminology Auditing to the Gene Ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2009 (in press).

59. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Can be computed using the author-attributes of the RT-tuples and the presence of D-tuples using corrections,
Allows even to compute the quality of sources.

60. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Can be computed using the various temporal attributes of the RT-tuples:
D-tuples specify when INF was entered,
Other tuples specify when relationships hold or when entities come and go.

61. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Determined by:
The sensor which identifies an entity as a distinct being,
The ontology used to characterize the entity as being of a specific type.

62. RT and SAS-050 INF quality: everything is computable!
Accuracy: the degree to which INF quality matches what is needed.
Completeness: extent to which INF relevant to ground truth is collected.
Consistency: extent to which INF is consistent with prior INF and consistent across sources.
Correctness: extent to which INF is consistent with ground truth.
Currency: difference between the current point in time and the time the INF was made available.
Precision: level of measurement detail of INF item.
Relevance: extent to which INF quality is relevant to the task at hand.
Timeliness: extent to which currency of INF is suitable to its use; the relationship between availability of the INF and when it is needed.
Uncertainty: a fundamental attribute of war and pervades the battlefield in the form of unknowns about the enemy, the surroundings, and our own forces.
Sharability: extent to which an element of INF is in a form or format understandable by all nodes in a network.
Source characteristics: the traits of tools used to develop facts, data, or instructions in any form or medium (and all INF sources are reporters).
Guaranteed through:
The standard syntax and referential semantics of RT-tuples,
The P2P and service oriented architecture of the RT system.

63. Summary and Conclusion

64. Summary and Conclusion
SAS-050, perhaps unknowingly, follows a realist agenda to achieve specific goals,
Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) and Referent Tracking (RT), on purpose, follow this agenda with broader objectives in mind:
BFO: to represent what is generic in reality
RT: to represent what is specific and relevant
Implementations of BFO and RT do not replace C2-systems, but, when integrated with them, provide added value in terms of, for example:
Enhanced sharability and semantic interoperability,
Unambiguous understanding of data using reality as benchmark,
Complete history of what happened, what was believed about it, and what communicated.