How to leverage_open_architectures_for existing_systems

How to leverage Open Architectures for existing systems

Mark Swick – RTI Webinar

Principal Applications Engineer, RTI • UCS WG Data Model Lead

Agenda

• Background– Open Architecture and Current Approaches

• Open Systems– Definitions and Examples

• Interoperability Architecture– Data is the primary driver– Capture and define its meaning– Interoperability by Design

Background

How Do We ‘Do’ Interoperability?

What is labeled ‘Open’?

© 2013 RTI

Current Technical Approaches

• Protocol Definitions & Standards– Tell me the messages

• Open Architecture Mandates– Interoperability on Commonality

• (Implementation) Architecture of the Day– Service Oriented Architecture – RESTful Interfaces– …

© 2013 RTI

Is Current Practice Working ?

• Recent studies have shown a growth in interoperability policy issuance in DoD– Thousands of pages of directives, instructions, and mandates– Numerous standards and architecture bodies in the DoD

• No Correlation between Increased Interoperability and Standards– Standards are necessary, but not sufficient for interoperability

• Conventional means of developing platform, unit command, and theater architectures are complex, manpower intensive, and time consuming.– Achieving Interoperability increases complexity– Complexity of systems-of-systems not understood or well

managed

Complexity is inherent in solution, must be managed

© 2013 RTI

OPENSYSTEMS

© 2013 RTI

© 2012 RTI • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Open Systems

• Open Systems– Are defined sufficiently that so

that multiple organizations can work cooperatively on the same or separate sub-components

– Have requirements which are stable over a sufficient length of time to allow for concurrent development

– Are documented fully and openly to the development community

– Are not under the control of any one firm or vendor.

Example: Blue Force Tracker Systems

8

TSG TSG

TSG

JNNKu-Band

ARMYBFT1

BFT1L-Band

VSAT

JCRNOC

L-Band Ground Stations

EPLRSEPLRS

EPLRS EPLRS

ARMY EPLRS

EPLRS EPLRS

USMC

GCSS-J – GCSS-A - DDS

Rea

chb

ack

TSG

TSG

TSG

DISAVPN

JBCPNOC

Open Precepts, Applied

• Message-Centric NOC Architecture– Point to Point– State is Implicit– Intermediate messages are

not actionable

• Data-Centric NOC Architecture– Observable databus– State is Explicit– Intermediate state is

actionable

ComtechSide A

ComtechSide B

CUI Network Gateway Satcom 1

CUI Network Gateway Satcom 2

SE

C

Re

gio

n

Se

rver

3

SE

C

NO

C

Cn

tlr

SE

CM

yS

QL

S

erv

er

SE

C

NT

P

SE

C

CD

I

CU

I R

eg

ion

S

erv

er

1

CU

I N

OC

C

ntr

lr

CU

IM

yS

QL

S

erv

er

CU

I C

DI

CU

I N

DS

CU

I N

AS

Network Switch Network Switch

NIP

R

NT

P

NIP

R

CD

I

SE

CC

2R

D

DS

CUI NOC Secret NOC

Ra

dia

nt

Me

rcu

ry

CUI ASA 5510

ComtechLBAND

NIPRNET

SEC Router

SEC Isolation Router

CUI Isolation Router

CUI Isolation Router

BF

T1

NE

H

Cisco 2924XL

SEC Legacy Gateway

SEC JCR Gateway

SECSatcom Gateway

SIPRNET

SE

C

ND

SS

EC

N

AS

Cisco 2924XL

CU

I A

ux

Tra

ns

CU

I N

TP

SE

C

Au

x

Tra

ns

CU

I M

TS

-E

S

CU

I R

eg

ion

S

erv

er

2

SE

C

Re

gio

n

Se

rver

4

1

2

3 4

5 6 7

8

9

10

11

12 Dell PowerEdge 815

RTI DDS

SEC Enclave

RadiantMercury

CP Conduit G

SIPRNet

CP Conduit H

Cross Domain Conduit J

SA Process

C2 Process

SDSA Process

KGV-72 x 4CUI

SA Process

C2 Process

SDSA Process

SA Process

C2 Process

SDSA Process

JCR NOC

NOC SA Display Conduit K

SA Process

C2 Process

SDSA Process

Type 1 Conduit I

SA Process

C2 Process

SDSA Process

SIPRNet

PersistenceServer

SDSA/C2 Routing

ConfigurationManagement

Logging

Health Monitoring

DataStore

NOC Addressed C2 Display

ASCOPE ASCOPEDatastore

Results of Opening System

• BeforeI. Custom implementation for

the Army

II. Centralized, monolithic and tightly coupled

III. Under development for 8 years

IV. 500,000 SLoC

V. Required 21 quad-core servers

VI. Supported 10,000 sustained tracks

VII. Suffered reliability and uptime challenges

• AfterI. Standards based, COTS

and Open Architecture

II. De-centralized, modular and de-coupled

III. PoC completed in 1 week, full system in 1 year

IV. 50,000 SLoC

V. Only requires a single core system

VI. Supports 500,000 sustained tracks

VII. Inherently supports full redundancy

10

System of Systems

System of Systems• A system systems is a

collection of task-oriented or dedicated systems that pool their resources and capabilities together to create a new, more complex system which offers more functionality and performance than simply the sum of the constituent systems.

System A

System B

System [n]

System A

System B

… System [n]

Has a set of >[n+1] capabilities

System of Systems/Open Systems

Properties

1. Operational independence of the component systems

2. Managerial independence of its component systems

3. Evolutionary Independence of the constituent systems

4. Emergent Behavior

© 2013 RTI

Key Non-Functional Requirements for a System

• Interchangeability• Replaceability/

Portability• Extensibility• Integratability

System

System A

System B

System

System B

System C

F(A,B) Results inX

F(C,B)Results inX

A and C provideEqual Capability

© 2013 RTI


• Interchangeability• Replaceability

/Portability• Extensibility• Integratability

System

System A

System B

System

System B

System C

F(A,B)Results inX, Y, Z

F(C,B) Results inY, Z, W

C is NOT an Equal Capability, but it Is a suitable substitute

© 2013 RTI

System




System

System B

System C

F(A,B) Results inX

F(A,B,C)Results inX and Y

System A

System

System B

System A

System C

F(C) Results inY

© 2013 RTI

System C




System B

F(A)Results In X

F(A,B)Results inZ, where Z=G[f(X), g(Y)]

System A

System B

System A

F(B)Results in Y

© 2013 RTI

The Key Non-Functional Requirement for a SoS

• Interoperabilitythe ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces, and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.

F(A) and G(B)BecomeG[F(A)] and F[G(B)]

F(A)ResultsIn X

System B

System A

G(B)ResultsIn Y

System of Systems

System B

System A

© 2013 RTI

Levels of Conceptual Interoperability

Level 0: No Interoperability

Level 1: Technical Interoperability

Level 2: Syntactic Interoperability

Level 3: Semantic Interoperability

Level 4: Pragmatic Interoperability

Level 5: Dynamic Interoperability

Level 6: Conceptual Interoperability

Incr

easi

ng C

apab

ility

Inte

rope

ratio

n

© 2013 RTI


• Requires– A stand alone system

• Result– Stand alone systems that

have no interoperability

• Non-Functional Need Met

– None








© 2013 RTI


• Requires– Communications Infrastructure

established

• Result– Bits & Bytes are exchanged in an

unambiguous manner

• Non-Functional Need Met– Replaceability

Interchangeability








© 2013 RTI


• Requires– Communications Infrastructure

established– Common structure or common

data format for exchanging information

• Result– Bits/Bytes and the Structure of

Data are exchanged in an unambiguous manner

• Non-Functional Need Met– Interchangeability and

IntegrateabilityLevel 0: No Interoperability







© 2013 RTI









• Required– Communications Infrastructure and

Common Data Format are established– Common information model is

defined for exchanging the meaning of information

• Result– Bits/Bytes and the structure of data

are exchanged in an unambiguous manner

– Content of the information exchanged is unambiguously defined

• Non-Functional Need Met– Actual, high-level Interoperability

© 2013 RTI

Level X: Temporal Interoperability








• Required– Temporal/order dependencies

between data elements are well defined

• Result– “Turn_On” followed by

“Turn_Off” means the same thing across a system

• Non-Functional Need Met– Predictable, Consistent behavior

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 24

Integration by Example

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 25

Interoperation by Example

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 26

Interoperation by Example

© 2013 RTI

Interoperability by Example

The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated.

Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell, After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life.

- Bransford & Johnson (1972)

© 2013 RTI

Data is the Key

How do you Define & Design it?

What does the Architecture look like?

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 29

MODEL

A model is anything used in any way to represent something else

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 30

DATA MODEL

A data model is a representation that describes the data about the things that exist in your domain

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 31

Systems of Systems are Different

System of

Systems

[n] types of systems

[n]sets of requirements +

the requirement for Semantic

Interoperability

many things to express

many different representations of those expressions

to achieve interoperability

© 2013 RTI

The SOS Data Model Shall…

1. Meet the requirements of all of the constituent systems

2. Support the overarching requirement for Semantic Interoperability

3. Allow for changes to be made to the model without requiring changes to the existing system and application interfaces that use it

Formal Language

Rigorous Documentation Formal Process

1. 2. 3.

We Need A Formal Approach!© 2013 RTI

Formal Language for Data Modeling

• Similar to structured, rigorous programming languages

• Ambiguity is not acceptable– Syntax– Semantics

Formal Language

Alphabet

Transformation Rules

Formation Rules

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 34

Semantics, Ambiguity, and Language

Natural Language Representation

• A brush hog costs 1500 dollars. I wait until the unit goes on sale. I can spend 450 dollars, including 8.25% tax. On Monday, the vendor discounts everything by 50%. Each day an item is not sold, it is discounted another 25%. How soon can I buy my part?

Formal Language Representation

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 35

Documentation Methodology

• Documenting only your messages is insufficient

• Documentation doesn’t end at the data model– Your system– Key decisions – Context

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 36

Formal Process

• Mandates are insufficient with so many stakeholders

• Can’t dictate everything, must accommodate many things

• Data Model needs to enforce rigorous well defined processes, not mandate messages

Atomic ElementsElements

of Meaning

© 2013 RTI

© 2013 RTI

Model and Implementation

• Model provides the Context and Semantics– Containment and relationships– May not necessarily be in the messages

• Messages can be compact– Use the model for context– ‘Know’ the relateability of a command to a status

• Using machine readable context– Can generate the system appropriate mediation– Really only need the ID of ‘what’ in the message

04/08/2023 38

Putting the Pieces Together

Things to Model from

System A

Data Model

Data Modeling Process

Structure

Behavior

Context

representation A

representation A

representation [n]

per a Rigorous and Formal

Approach

© 2013 RTI

04/08/2023 39

Data Centric Integration Solution

Legacy System A

Mediation

Future System C

Mediation

New System B

Mediation

• Technical Interoperability– Infrastructure &

Protocol

• Syntactic Interoperability– Common Data

Structure

• Semantic Interoperability– Common Data

Definition

© 2013 RTI

Who is Doing this Currently?

• US OSD and the UCS (UAV Control Segment)– Working Group has built a formal, conceptual data model by which to enforce

interoperability.– Provides ability to calculate mediation and integration of messages from different standards,

without loss of context and semantics.

• OpenGroup FACE (Future Airborne Capability Environment)– Focus on portability and interoperability. Using the same conceptual data

model concepts. © 2013 RTI


UCS

• https://www.rti.com/industries/ucs.html

• Release 3.2, March 2014– Architecture Description (UCS-INF-AD) Version 2.2– Architecture Technical Governance (UCS-SPEC-TECHGOV) Version 2.3– Conformance Specification (UCS-SPEC-CONFORMANCE) 2.1– Governance (UCS-PLN-GOV) Version 3.1– Interface Control Document (ICD) (UCS-INF-ICD) Version 2.2– Interface Control Document (ICD) Source (UCS-INF-ICD-SRC) 2.2– Interface Control Document: Data Distribution Service (DDS) (UCS-G-ICDDDS) Version 2.2– Interface Control Document: Data Distribution Service (DDS) Source (UCS-G-ICDDDS-SRC) Version 2.2– Interface Control Document: Java Messaging Service (JMS) (UCS-G-ICDJMS) Version 2.2– Interface Control Document: Java Messaging Service (JMS) Source (UCS-G-ICDJMS-SRC) Version 2.2– Model (UCS-SPEC-MODEL) Version 3.2– Model Examples (UCS-G-MODELEX) Version 1.2– Model Implementation Reference (UCS-G-MIR) Version 2.2– Model Interchange Guide (UCS-G-MIG) 1.0– Program of Work (UCS-PLN-AV1) Version 3.2– EA Version of UCS ICD Model (UCS-INF-ICD-EA) 1.0– Rhapsody Version of UCS ICD Model (UCS-INF-ICD-RPY) 1.0– RSA Version of UCS ICD Model (UCS-INF-ICD-RSA) 1.0– UCS/FACE Shared Data Metamodel (UCS-SPEC-UCSFACEDMM) 1.0– Use Case to Service Interface Trace (UCS-INF-UCTRACE) Version 1.2– Version Description Document (UCS-INF-VDD) Version 1.2

https://www.rti.com/industries/ucs.html


FACE• OpenGroup FACE (Future Airborne Capability

Environment)– Focus on portability and interoperability. Using the

same conceptual data model concepts.


FACE

• https://www.rti.com/industries/face.html

• Published Documents– FACE Business Guide– FACE Shared Data Model 2.0– FACE Data Model Governance Plan– FACE Technical Standard Edition 1.0 – Corrigendum– FACE Technical Standard Edition 2.0– FACE Technical Standard Edition 2.1– FACE Reference Implementation Guide– FACE Conformance Program Documents– FACE Library Infrastructure Documents

• Face 101– FACE 101 Technical Briefing

• Coming Soon– FACE Business Guide 2.0– FACE Contract Guide– FACE Library Requirements 2.1– FACE Conformance Certification Guide– FACE Conformance Test Suite

https://www.rti.com/industries/face.html

https://www.rti.com/industries/face.html

Summary

• Open Architecture (OA) is an acquisition concept– It is not a specific technical solution

• A large infrastructure to manage OA isn’t needed– Architecture solely for the sake of Architecture is a waste

• Interoperability has to be by design– By specification works for small teams

• Processes need to readily accommodate change– Most systems are inherently dynamic

• A system’s data is the key to risk and cost management– it must be a “first-class” citizen– Manage content, context, and behavior….

© 2013 RTI

How to leverage_open_architectures_for existing_systems

Technology

Transcript of How to leverage_open_architectures_for existing_systems