Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) Study Group

Battle Management Language

A Battle Management Language (BML) is essential for clearly communicating orders to live, simulated, and robotic forces Initiated in 1999 by the US Army Modeling and Simulation Office, now under the Battle Command, Simulation, and Experimentation directorate, BML aims to standardize key concepts such as the "Who, What, When, Where, and Why" (5W's) necessary for effective command and control This standardized language must be comprehensible to command and control systems, simulations, and autonomous robots.

These principles have led researchers to describe three “views” or perspectives on BML (Tolk & Blais 2005):

The BML Doctrine emphasizes the necessity for clear and precise definitions of all terms within the language, ensuring they are grounded in military doctrine It advocates for the inclusion of diverse doctrinal perspectives from various services or nations, rather than adhering to a singular service doctrine This approach is facilitated through a comprehensive glossary of terms and definitions within BML.

The BML Representation View organizes and connects the terms outlined in the doctrine to create a clear description of executable missions and tasks A mission is characterized as a series of tasks that need to be performed in a coordinated manner This representation can take various forms, including conceptual, logical, or physical data models, as well as fully formalized ontologies.

BML protocols play a crucial role in standardizing the transfer of executable task descriptions and the associated military resources to target systems such as command and control (C2), simulations, or robots In the evolving net-centric operational landscape, web-based and grid standards emerge as viable candidates for these protocols, enhancing interoperability and efficiency in military operations.

An ontology, as defined by Tolk and Blais (2005), is a formal specification that clearly outlines concepts to ensure consistent understanding among individuals interested in a specific domain The discussion of a C2 Ontology for BML is detailed in Appendix C Additionally, the use of XML for describing information exchange requirements is essential, as it is the widely accepted standard for data representation in battle command, simulation, and robotic systems.

Figure 1 summarizes the three BML views It should be clear that BML is a concept that can have numerous realizations across the three views

Figure 1 BML Views: Doctrine, Representation, and Protocols

In BML, every term must be clearly defined and grounded in established doctrine This necessitates the creation of a glossary that includes each term alongside its precise definition and the source of that definition.

The glossary should be harmonized with existing SISO initiatives to establish a standardized dictionary for M&S solutions, including the definitions from the Real-time Platform Reference (RPR) Federation Object Model (FOM) and the Simulation Object Model (SOM) lexicon Additionally, it must align with Command and Control efforts, such as the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) It is essential that the glossary also corresponds with manuals and handbooks outlining doctrines for the warfighter, with NATO and ABCA publications serving as foundational resources.

Each attribute in the C2IEDM includes a mandatory field that defines its meaning and cites the source of that definition, similar to the FOM Lexicon outlined in the HLA standard.

The 4 ABCA program, established in 1947 following World War II collaboration among allies, originally included the United States, Britain, and Canada, with Australia joining in 1964 and New Zealand obtaining observer status in 1965 Today, the program emphasizes interoperability supported by national publications, with the Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) C2IEDM serving as a key doctrinal framework.

A common misconception in discussions is that the doctrine view pertains to only one doctrine; however, it clearly defines a doctrine while accommodating various doctrinal perspectives from different services or nations Once standardized, the BML doctrine view facilitates the description of diverse doctrines in a uniform manner, ultimately highlighting the differing viewpoints of partners regarding doctrine.

Significant advancements in Command and Control (C2) ontology for the US Army are highlighted in the reports by Sudnikovich et al (2004) and Carey et al (2001) Establishing a C2 ontology is a complex endeavor that demands careful consideration Current efforts lay the groundwork for standard recommendations and outline methods for future C-BML developers However, a universally accepted technical framework is still lacking Ongoing discussions are examining the necessity of various ontological layers to adequately represent military doctrine The Strategic Group believes that a phased development approach is essential to evolve from a basic glossary to a more semantically rich ontology, yet a universally applicable solution for all C-BML target domains remains elusive.

The representation view organizes and connects terms from the doctrinal view to outline executable missions and tasks A mission consists of a series of tasks that need to be performed in a coordinated manner This representation should enable not only the description of individual tasks but also their composition and orchestration into cohesive missions Additionally, it must incorporate military assets, which can include actual units or platforms as well as simulated entities It is essential for the representation to address causalities and temporal relationships relevant to the warfighter, thereby linking the representation view with the doctrinal view.

The US prototype development for Battle Management Language (BML) is currently based on the C2IEDM data model, while the evolving MIP data model will form the foundation for C-BML representation As the C-BML initiative uncovers tasks and missions beyond the existing C2IEDM framework, the working group will advocate for member nations to submit change proposals to the MIP Additionally, any extensions to the C2IEDM aimed at meeting the needs of the modeling and simulation (M&S) community will be handled similarly.

Emerging commercial standards initiatives, like the Object Management Group's (OMG) Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services (SOPES), are anticipated to enhance C-BML by leveraging their advancements.

Interoperability is defined as the capability of Alliance Forces, along with Partner and other Nations' forces when applicable, to train, exercise, and operate efficiently together in fulfilling assigned missions and tasks.

MIP work into industry and international standards for expressing and sharing information in support of coordinated operations.

C-BML Study Group Terms of Reference

As introduced earlier, the statement of work for the C-BML SG identifies the following tasks:

 Conduct a Paper Survey identifying as many international contributions applicable to the C-BML effort as possible

 Develop a Plan of how these identified can contribute to a common C-BML standard and to a standard framework.

 Formulate a set of Recommendations on how to proceed toward a C- BML Product Development Group.

This document contains the products of the SG efforts across these three tasks.

C-BML Study Group Meetings

The following meetings were held during the course of the C-BML Study Group’s chartered term:

• Initial SG Meeting at Fall 2004 SIW - September 2004

• Meeting at the 2004 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) - December 2004

• Face-to-Face Meeting at the Virginia Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Center (VMASC) – 7-9 March 2005

• SG Meeting at Spring 2005 SIW – 7 April 2005

• SG Prep for Euro-SIW Telecon – 22 June 2005

• SG Meeting at 05 Euro-SIW - 30 June 2005

• SG Report Meeting at George Mason University (GMU) - 2-3 August 2005

The following meetings are expected to be held prior to concluding the Study Group:

• Final SG Meeting at Fall 05 SIW – 22 September 2005

In Fall 2004, a kick-off meeting was conducted to introduce the Study Group to SISO, establishing its initial membership and work plan An interim meeting was scheduled for December 2004 at I/ITSEC in Orlando, Florida, coinciding with a NATO pre-kickoff meeting on the same subject During the NATO MSG meeting in October 2004 in Koblenz, Germany, the decision was made to form an expert team, Exploratory Team 016 (ET-016), to assess the applicability of BML concepts for the alliance The official launch of this initiative occurred in February 2005 in Paris, France.

Due to the limited time for discussions at official SIW meetings and the significant international interest in BML showcased during the I/ITSEC meeting in Orlando, a face-to-face meeting was scheduled for March 2005 at Old Dominion University's VMASC This gathering aimed to provide potential contributors the opportunity to present their related work and foster discussions on ideas The primary focus of the meeting was to survey and identify possible international contributions relevant to the C-BML initiative.

The VMASC face-to-face meeting took place from March 7-9, 2005, chaired by Major Kevin Galvin and hosted by Dr Andreas Tolk This significant event gathered 35 international experts and involved participation from five prominent universities: Carnegie Mellon University, George Mason University, Naval Postgraduate School, Old Dominion University, and the University of Texas Additionally, representatives from six countries—Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, and the USA—were present For a detailed overview, please refer to Appendix A.

The C-BML SG conducted an open meeting on 7 April 2005 during the Spring

2005 SIW in San Diego, California With the formation of a related but separate

The Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) Special Group (SG) focuses on the automated initialization of Command and Control (C2) and simulation systems, fostering a strong collaboration with Co-chair Maj Galvin, who also serves as the Vice-chair of the MSDL SG During the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), the group conducted a C2IEDM tutorial and presented several pertinent papers, including 05S-SIW-007, 018, 019, 055, 068, 140, and 154.

A meeting took place at Euro-SIW in Toulouse, France, focusing on the SG Report This event was organized in collaboration with the MSDL SG, with the majority of MSDL SG officers participating in the C-BML SG meeting.

SG officers attended the MSDL SG meeting.

On August 2-3, a working group meeting took place at GMU to finalize the Study Group Report, with significant coordination alongside the MSDL SG, which convened on August 3 right after the C-BML SG meeting.

Document Organization

This document is organized into six sections, beginning with an introduction to the SG objectives, an overview of BML, and a summary of SG activities It then explores related international work in the M&S and C2 interoperability community that aligns with C-BML objectives A phased development plan for the C-BML standard is outlined, followed by recommendations from the C-BML SG The document also includes a list of references, acknowledges contributors, and features appendices with supporting materials such as a summary of the March VMASC meeting, considerations for ontology work, a list of C-BML participants, a glossary of acronyms, and an extended bibliography relevant to the C-BML initiative.

In March 2005, attendees of the SG meeting participated in a survey to share insights about their current involvement with C-BML and their interest in future C-BML standards as they relate to ongoing projects This summary highlights the feedback gathered from respondents, along with details on other relevant projects that contribute to the C-BML initiative, identifying the organizations behind each project.

ABACUS Architecture (Raytheon, USA)

Raytheon is developing a rebaselined Advanced Battlefield Computer Simulations (ABACUS) architecture for the UK Ministry of Defence's next generation Command and Staff Trainer (CAST) The existing ABACUS system, which interfaces with the BOWMAN C2 system, has shown limitations in interoperability The new architecture aims to enhance robustness and flexibility, incorporating High-Level Architecture (HLA) capabilities and allowing for easy integration of additional Command and Control components, including the upcoming Battlefield Information System Applications (BISA) that will align with future BOWMAN upgrades.

Raytheon has proposed a revised ABACUS system to the MoD, utilizing a service-oriented architecture (SOA) and the C2IEDM schema as the foundation for its simulation database This system will feature a C2IEDM-based object model to enhance interoperability with command and control systems By leveraging existing design work, such as the US Army's SIMCI C4I/M&S Reference Object Model, Raytheon aims to minimize design risks and efforts Additionally, the architecture includes an external interface management layer that provides adapters for translating simulation data into suitable information exchange formats, facilitating data transfers with external systems, including those compatible with High Level Architecture (HLA) and related command and control systems.

The C-BML serves as a vital and integrated extension for the proposed ABACUS Rebaseline architecture By engaging with the C-BML working group and contributing to BML standards development, Raytheon aims to acquire the necessary expertise to seamlessly integrate BML capabilities into the design of the interface adapter.

9 BOWMAN is the UK's initiative to equip the British Army with a digitized radio system that enhances secure voice communication and data transmission This upgraded system ensures seamless interoperability, not solely relying on established standards but also utilizing a flexible and extensible framework This approach aims to maintain compatibility for future Command and Control (C2) systems The timeline for developing BML standards is strategically aligned with the Rebaseline architecture schedule, making their implementation feasible within the next few years.

Aide a la Planification d’Engagement Tactique (APLET) (DGA/EADS, France)

The Aide à la Planification d’Engagement Tactique (APLET) is a research and technology initiative by the French Ministry of Defence, focused on enhancing the capabilities of modeling and simulation (M&S) within the existing Brigade level command and control (C2) system, known as SICF (Système d’Information et de Commandement des Forces), for COAA (Cognitive Operational Analysis and Assessment) purposes APLET addresses technical challenges related to the integration of C2 and M&S, aiming to develop recommendations for interface specifications and data models that bridge the gap between contemporary M&S and legacy C2 systems.

APLET faces a significant technical challenge in defining and designing its simulation data model to ensure consistency with the SICF data representation To address this, APLET is focused on identifying a reusable C2 data model that can be enhanced to develop the APLET data model effectively.

This led to the conclusion that the C2IEDM was the most suitable data model to address APLET requirements, for the following reasons:

• C2IEDM is a recent and very complete model (good coverage of the land forces’ requirements)

• Most of APLET’s data can be represented with the C2IEDM data model

• C2IEDM is the current convergence point of the C2 international community and is supported from an operational point of view

• SICF is based on the Army Tactical Command Control and Information System (ATCCIS) C2IEDM version 5, also designated Generic Hub version 5 (GH5)

Simulation requires a broader range of parameters and attributes compared to C2, as it incorporates specific requirements from various models Key factors such as physical behavior, including speed characteristics, hit probability, kill probability, and detection probability, are absent in C2IEDM Additionally, simulations must effectively manage multiple values for selected parameters, as a military unit's status includes the original status from the C2 system, modifications made by simulation operators to initialize the simulation, and the evolving values during the execution of the simulation.

Objects, attributes, and parameters that fall outside the scope of C2 systems are not included in the C2IEDM framework and are instead managed internally by simulations These elements are not transmitted to C2 systems Consequently, the lessons learned from APLET will inform Change Proposals submitted to the MIP Data Modeling Working Group (DMWG) aimed at enhancing and improving the C2IEDM framework.

In summary, APLET’s data model is developed as an extension of C2IEDM, enabling seamless mapping and ensuring natural interoperability with C2 systems such as SICF.

In the context of C2-simulation interoperability studies, APLET has developed an "APLET BML" XML schema aligned with the US Extensible BML (XBML) prototype and the C2IEDM framework This initiative aims to contribute to the SISO C-BML SG's standardization efforts by making the "APLET BML" format accessible Additionally, APLET will adapt to the C-BML SG's advancements to ensure compliance with the C-BML format and future PDG guidelines This initiative will be part of the NATO MSG-48 C-BML experimentation, with the goal of promoting BML within NATO and facilitating the operational implementation of a NATO BML standard.

Army C4ISR and Simulation Initialization System (ARL/UT, USA)

C4ISR systems have advanced to enable full Network-Centric Warfare (NCW), offering commanders and their teams a comprehensive and precise Common Operational Picture (COP) of the battlefield in near real-time Additionally, Modeling and Simulation (M&S) systems have progressed to facilitate extensive federations of numerous workstations and servers, allowing for the exchange of information across various simulation systems and service-specific Joint Command and Control (C2) systems, ultimately contributing to a Joint National Training Capability (JNTC).

To establish and maintain a comprehensive and accurate Common Operating Picture (COP), it is crucial to initialize systems using a unified set of complete and synchronized data The production of Army network-centric system architectures and command and control (C2) initialization data for real-world operations and training is both time-consuming and prone to errors The existing initialization process is complex, decentralized, and primarily manual, leading to inconsistencies between C2 systems and simulations Current operational timelines necessitate that initialization data be generated and synchronized within days, yet the existing methods can take weeks or even months This issue is expected to escalate as more digital C2 systems are deployed across the U.S Army.

The U.S military is advancing its vision for digitized operations through the Future Combat System (FCS), which emphasizes interoperability among joint service and coalition systems across a Global Information Grid.

To address the challenges in military communication and simulation, a collaborative initiative has been launched involving the Central Technical Support Facility (CTSF), Army Program Executive Office for Command, Control, and Communications Tactical (PEO C3T), Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO), and the Army Simulation-to-C2 Interoperability (SIMCI) Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) This effort has led to the development of the Army C4ISR and Simulation Initialization System (ACSIS) Located at Fort Hood, Texas, the CTSF is tasked with creating and integrating data products to initialize digital command and control (C2) systems for units utilizing the Army Battle Command System (ABCS), which includes the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) and Blue Force Tracking (BFT) systems Additionally, the Applied Research Labs at the University of Texas in Austin (ARL/UT) is contributing technical expertise to enhance the development of ACSIS for both the PEO C3T and the simulation community.

The ACSIS initiative aims to swiftly create initialization data products using automated tools for C2 (ABCS) systems and a network of simulation systems The objective of PEO C3T is to significantly decrease the data production time for C2 systems from several months to approximately 96 hours.

ACSIS currently provides ABCS network and simulation initialization data products in various system-specific formats and standard XML Data Interchange Formats (DIFs), including C2IEDM and MSDL It translates data element syntax and naming conventions to format the initialization data in the native format suitable for direct ingestion by target systems As standards like C2IEDM, Global Force Management EwIDs, and MSDL gain acceptance in both C2 and simulation communities, the need for extensive data element mappings and translations is decreasing.

BML offers a clear and standardized method for the automated exchange of battle management data elements among command and control (C2) systems and simulations By utilizing C-BML, coalition partners can effectively share vital battle management products across the operational landscape It is essential for C2 systems and simulations to be initialized and synchronized with the data from these tactical battle management products to ensure seamless collaboration.

Base Object Model (BOM) PDG (SimVentions, USA)

The principal need within the C2 community is the ability to exchange information in a relevant, consistent, and meaningful manner The difficulty, however, is in

The 11 FCS program, initiated by the US Army, aims to develop various platforms that align with the Network-Centric Warfare (NCW) concept This initiative focuses on building and integrating systems, simulations, and assets that ensure interoperability through commonly agreed-upon message interfaces It is essential for command and control (C2), simulation, robotic, and other system interfaces to be represented at the subsystem or component level, enabling a composable infrastructure Such an infrastructure allows for the composability, mapping, and integration of interfaces along with their subsystems and components Additionally, it supports the modular representation of complex systems, enhancing understanding and facilitating effective collaboration.

The BOM PDG has developed a set of products within SISO (SISO 2005a, 2005b) useful for representing reusable components of simulations and simulation environments, and understanding complex systems in a modular form.

A Bill of Materials (BOM) is a foundational component of a conceptual model, consisting of interrelated elements that serve as building blocks for developing and expanding federations, individual federates, Federation Object Models (FOM), or Standard Object Models (SOM) BOMs enhance composability and extensibility, promote interoperability, improve manageability, and foster better understanding within systems.

A Bill of Materials (BOM) solution ensures consistent data layout and processing across different systems, enhancing the reliability of system outcomes By establishing a reference standard for data exchange and processing methods, a BOM solution significantly improves the dependability of information shared between systems.

BOM serves as a framework for defining the individual interfaces of C4I capabilities within the HLA context through XML This allows BOMs to facilitate communication between C4I systems and simulations, enabling developers to concentrate on the representation of interfaces rather than the underlying complexities.

“implementation.” This separation of interface from implementation allows C2 and M&S domains to be more easily bridged

C-BML utilizes Pattern Actions and State Machines within a BOM to align with executable tasks, orders, and commands The BOM serves as a framework to represent C2IEDM elements, facilitating the modeling of C2 information It captures conceptual model elements from BML/C2IEDM and maps them to an HLA-based interface Consequently, BOMs can be loosely coupled and assembled, effectively representing C4I and simulation environments, thus supporting a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and C4I systems.

C2 Ontology (VMASC/ODU, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)

The modern C2 data landscape is highly intricate, comprising not only individual systems but also interconnected systems of systems These systems must work together seamlessly across various military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force), within the same nation, and internationally Achieving this interoperability incurs significant costs, primarily due to the extensive design and redesign required for system interchange mechanisms Unfortunately, these mechanisms can lead to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of data by the receiving systems Despite its complexity, this issue is believed to be addressable through contemporary information technology solutions.

Understanding the ontological meaning of data across different systems, coupled with a comprehensive referential data model for translation, enhances interoperability and ensures higher validity of exchanged data This research contributes in three key ways: it defines the concept of ontology, particularly in relation to a referential data model and its applications; it proposes a method for assessing the effectiveness of a referential data model based on this definition; and it applies this evaluation method to the C2IEDM, analyzing the findings.

This study is crucial for the C-BML group as it aims to determine how an ontological process can enhance the C2IEDM The evaluation of the C2IEDM ontology will assess its rigor as a foundational element for future C2 ontologies Furthermore, this ontology will be instrumental in evaluating the completeness of the C2IEDM, facilitating inter-system, inter-service, and international data exchange as envisioned by the C-BML project.

EXPLAIN Project (North Side, Inc., Canada)

The EXPLAIN project aims to enhance semantic understanding of factual English texts, extending beyond the confines of "controlled English." Its initial application involves the semantic processing of military scenarios in English, leading to the creation of a formal, ontology-based encoding of these texts.

EXPLAIN produces a formal, ontology-anchored encoding of Natural Language texts that can be post-processed for several purposes:

Utilizing English for Operational Planning (OPLAN), situation reporting, and order issuance enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of interactions among live, constructive, and robotic forces Translating English texts into a formal representation facilitates ontology-based interoperability solutions By employing a robust ontology for C2IEDM, users can seamlessly interface with C2IEDM systems, simplifying the process of entering English orders and OPLANs without navigating complex menus.

• Extraction from text of the information required to simulate what is described in the text (actors, objects, attributes, events, locations, times, modus operandi) will enable rapid scenario generation.

• Displaying the meaning of the text visually on a map (forces, affiliation, attributes, movement, sensor and weapon activation, etc.) will enable rapid situational awareness.

Rapid scenario specification significantly enhances mission effectiveness in military operations Currently, military simulations rely on a programmatic approach, requiring months of preparation for complex exercises By utilizing Natural Language specification, scenarios can be defined much more quickly, allowing for the consideration of numerous tradeoffs that lead to improved mission outcomes This capability enables end-users, including field officers, to directly evaluate Courses of Action (COA) in English, ultimately facilitating the deployment and utilization of simulations in real-world settings.

To ensure C-BML serves as a clear and precise language, it must be grounded in a robust ontological framework, specifically through the development of a C2 domain Ontology based on an Upper Ontology This foundational Upper Ontology will define essential concepts, including Abstract and Physical Objects, Class and Sub-Class, Relations, sub-Relations, and Attributes The Ontological Engineering community recognizes the necessity of this approach for the automatic verification of domain Ontologies, such as C2 Ontology Acknowledging the significance of generic Upper Ontologies, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is working on establishing a generic Upper Ontology to support future Domain Ontologies Adopting this rigorous Ontological Engineering strategy is expected to greatly benefit both BML and C2IEDM.

The capacity to convert English into a structured, ontology-based format allows users to communicate in English while receiving automatic translations into BML This advancement facilitates the use of English for operational planning, simulation, and command of robotic forces, ultimately enhancing the acceptance of BML among operational users.

Formal Tasking Language Grammar (Mitre, USA)

Currently, establishing and guaranteeing computational feasibility, consistency, overlap, and coverage among the tasking languages within MSDL and BML is challenging due to the absence of a universally defined tasking language grammar for both MSDL and Army BML.

The US Army's Battle Management Language (BML) initiative was developed to equip commanders with a clear and effective means of directing military forces and equipment during operations This effort aims to enhance situational awareness and establish a shared, common operational picture among all units involved.

US Army BML is a tasking language telling subordinate forces what actions to take.

MSDL is a scenario definition language designed for simulation independence, enabling the reuse of scenarios across various simulations that support the MSDL format Its development prioritizes the exclusion of simulation-specific references and the use of an open data interchange format Additionally, similar to BML, MSDL includes a tasking language that instructs subordinate forces on the actions to take during simulation execution.

A unified tasking language that integrates both MSDL and BML would enable the seamless saving of BML-generated orders in MSDL format, facilitating their import into simulations during scenario generation Currently, achieving consistency, overlap, and comprehensive coverage between the tasking languages utilized in MSDL and BML remains a challenge.

US Army BML lack a common formally defined tasking language grammar.

The Military Scenario Development Environment (MSDE) and US Army BML developers are creating a unified formal tasking language grammar that can be utilized in an XML-based format known as MSDL This development will enhance the integration of BML-generated tasks into simulations that support MSDL technology, facilitating seamless task importation within the C2IEDM framework.

This initiative significantly benefits the C-BML community by establishing a clear and precise grammar definition This definition can be shared and utilized to unify the Armed Forces, Coalition, and various other BML efforts.

Geospatial BML (US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, USA)

Terrain and weather information is essential for all facets of Command and Control (C2) and Modeling and Simulation (M&S) A unified approach to the generation of terrain and weather data would enhance the development and extension of Battle Management Language (BML) Previous efforts to establish a common terrain and environment model have primarily concentrated on data-level integration.

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) invests in numerous projects in the areas of Battle Space Environments and Military

Engineering plays a crucial role in the investigation of information technology and knowledge representation, particularly within the domains of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and Command and Control (C2) A notable project focused on enhancing interoperability in M&S and C2 is the Common Maneuver Networks initiative, which aims to improve Embedded Training, Mission Planning, and Mission Rehearsal This project leverages Battlefield Terrain Reasoning and Awareness (BTRA) products alongside the One Semi-Automated Forces (SAF) Objective System (OOS) to develop and demonstrate proof-of-principle solutions.

ERDC is creating automated decision support services that utilize tactical terrain behavior and activity models in conjunction with terrain and dynamic environment data This initiative involves developing a maneuver ontology based on tasks identified in the US Army Universal Task List (AUTL) and US FM 3-0 "Operations."

FM 3-90 “Tactics” and other sources provide essential information for planning and executing tactical missions The ERDC aims to represent terrain and dynamic environments through discrete objects and their relationships to tactical entities By extracting relevant data from extensive terrain datasets, ERDC reduces this information to its tactical essence, creating an ontology for conceptual interoperability This foundation supports the development of decision aids for commanders and staff, enabling the implementation of tactical patterns influenced by terrain and environment A practical application of this approach is the maneuver ontology, which integrates with SAF and C2 platforms to demonstrate interoperability by exporting planned routes and networks into M&S platforms.

The advantages of this broad abstraction and representation of the battle space context are numerous:

• Consistent with current state-of-the-art in representation of other tactical entities and relationships.

• All-inclusive framework for planning and manipulating targets, terrain, activities, plans, sensing, shooting, moving, etc.

Human users can engage in interactive visualization and integration of COA, allowing for quick exploration of “what-if” scenarios and adjustments to plans This process fosters a comprehensive understanding of how tactical operations interact with the terrain and the dynamic context of the environment.

• Facilitates communication between humans and software systems by representation of tactical pattern entities and context in a common language.

• Network-friendly representation of all entities and relationships, including terrain and dynamic environment, in relatively lightweight databases and structures that reduce bandwidth and storage and processing requirements at nodes.

• Enables application of state-of-the-art algorithms for feasible option generation and search, dynamic tracking and synchronization, and efficient task sequencing and scheduling.

Although the C-BML SG is not currently prioritizing it, articulating the present situation and the Common Operational Picture (COP) is crucial for the development of C-BML The commander’s intent and directives for lower echelons rely on the specific battle space context provided by the COP and the current situation Planning for execution without a clear terrain context can create ambiguity in C-BML that is absent in current planning processes.

To achieve the Center's ultimate goal, the development of Geospatial BML (GeoBML) is essential, as it aligns tactical task representations with geospatial and temporal requirements for tactical activities Traditional combat operations relied on visual communication methods, like maps and sand tables, but future operations will necessitate distributed planning and execution Effective communication of geospatial and temporal aspects in a distributed environment requires explicit representation of terrain and dynamic environmental contexts Current ERDC programs are focused on creating tactical terrain ontologies to facilitate this process, but these structures must be organized to support mission command in a distributed battlefield Collaboration between selected ERDC programs and BML developers is crucial for creating a GeoBML that provides a consistent semantic language for the effective application of terrain and environmental context in future net-centric forces.

Identification of C-BML Need (Ericsson, Sweden)

This summary covers four different, but related topics that address the need for a C-BML: (1) Planning for Joint operations; (2) Operational Joint Command Support; (3) Assessment of a Commander’s Intent; (4) Opponent’s Intent.

Effective joint operations require comprehensive joint planning to ensure clear communication of a commander’s intent across different military branches and nations To achieve this, it is essential to develop doctrines and workflows that are machine-readable, enabling seamless information exchange among coalition forces during simulated operations The proposed solution is a collaborative planning tool that allows commanders from various service branches and nations to work together in real-time, each contributing their perspectives and representations.

Operational Joint Command Support is essential in a dynamic mission context where deployed units must collaborate across various branches and nations, each with its own unique command language and representations This diversity complicates the clear communication of a commander’s intent To address this challenge, there is a growing need for joint operations to adhere to a joint doctrine that can be expressed in a machine-readable format The goal is to ensure that a commander’s intent can be translated and understood clearly by other commanders, regardless of their national or service branch affiliations, while still respecting their individual taxonomies, representations, specialized systems, and unique capabilities within their command and control environments.

Assessing a commander's intent is crucial in the dynamic operational environment, where adaptability to new situations is vital While training occurs in the lead-up to missions, commanders must be prepared to adjust their strategies on the fly To prevent outdated behaviors and groupthink from hindering decision-making, real-time assessments are essential during operations This process also involves integrating the intentions of allied commanders, utilizing their doctrinal approaches in training A key assumption is the presence of information fusion capabilities that align sensor data with the commander's objectives By employing advanced information fusion methods and algorithms, it becomes possible to clarify the commander's intent for current missions and evaluate alignment with broader strategic goals, ultimately determining the likelihood of mission success.

Understanding the opponent's intent is crucial for effective military planning When a force commander's intentions are clearly articulated and utilized in strategic assessments, it becomes possible to similarly define the opponent's intentions using the same ontology or taxonomy This approach enables a decision support system to recognize the adversary's intent and leverage the commander's intent framework to implement suitable countermeasures Importantly, this methodology is based on the premise that a universal description of commander intent can be applied not only to current frameworks but also to future scenarios.

Effective planning for joint operations is crucial, and a key aspect of this is the capability of a Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) to accurately express a user's intent through their national or service-specific representations (National BML) This mapping and translation to C-BML enables seamless integration and utilization within command and control (C2) or simulation systems, enhancing operational effectiveness.

Operational Joint Command Support As above, with addition of the ability for commanders from different nations/services to share each other’s intentions in their own command and control systems.

Assessment of Commander’s Intent As above, with addition of the ability to map the current progress of an operation against current status reports and warnings

Opponent’s Intent The relevance to C-BML is that without a common language it is a much harder task to represent an opposing commander’s intentions.

For the ideas/solutions presented above some work has been done, some work is in progress and some is planned:

• The work within LedsystM 12 is one source for a C-BML methodology and an example of building doctrinal representations.

• Swedish Defence Material Administration vision and practical work in the field.

• The Swedish Armed Forces (SweAF) Ground Combat Model is an existing BML for ground forces and might be used as a case study for alignment towards C-BML.

• Work within Swedish industry (Ericsson and others) to build efficient decision support systems for commanders.

• Information Fusion research project at University of Skửvde.

IMASE Scenario Generation Tool (US Army Threat System Management Office, USA) 23

The Intelligence Modeling and Simulation for Evaluation (IMASE) Scenario Generation Tool (ISGT) is designed to facilitate the rapid creation of Operational Test threat scenarios for the testing of US Army Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW) systems These scenarios utilize modeling and simulation (M&S) to create a synthetic environment for the System Under Test (SUT) While the current M&S environment, Tactical Simulation Operational Test (TACSIM-OT), is limited to the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), it is being replaced by the IMASE System of Systems (SoS) The IMASE will build upon the successful framework of TACSIM-OT, expanding M&S support to include IEW Sensor Systems and additional IEW processing systems.

Currently, ISGT has entered one of the last phases of development Its current capabilities include multiple client/server machines using Microsoft Structured

The article discusses the use of Query Language (SQL) for importing intelligence data through the Unit Order of Battle Data Access Tool (UOB DAT, v8.1) It highlights the capabilities for scenario data import and export utilizing the ISGT XML schema, along with the export of scenario data via the MSDL schema Additionally, it emphasizes features such as a data-driven database and the import of HLA runtime data, facilitated by the Modeling Architecture for Technology and Research Experimentation (MATREX) FOM v0.5 rev3.

The Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Headquarters is tasked with evaluating the integration of ISGT, BML, ACSIS, and the C3 Driver Currently, ISGT can export scenario data to various modeling and simulation (M&S) systems, including OOS, using MSDL v3.1.0 Block C build 21 Specifically, ISGT has the potential to utilize BML for linking with other M&S and command and control (C2) systems, provided those systems can effectively manipulate BML Mastering BML will enable ISGT to achieve capabilities similar to those offered by the ISGT XML schema for data import and export, but on a broader scale This advancement will allow ISGT to export scenario data using BML to enhance scenarios for M&S and C2 systems that are BML-compatible, as well as import BML scenario data generated by these systems to create new scenarios.

Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) (DMSO, USA)

A force structure tailored to military needs must ensure flexibility and interoperability of information to support fast-moving operations This requires an accelerated decision-action cycle and a high operational tempo within combined joint formations Commanders depend on timely and accurate information, necessitating effective communication across national and language barriers Furthermore, tactical command and control (C2) information must reach operational and strategic levels, as well as other governmental departments It is also crucial for military forces to engage with non-governmental organizations, including international aid agencies, to enhance operational effectiveness.

The Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) aims to enhance international interoperability of Command and Control Information Systems (C2IS) across all military levels, from corps to battalion, facilitating multinational operations, including those involving NATO By implementing the MIP specification, C2 information systems can seamlessly exchange data, ensuring that battle space information is accurately transmitted and understood across different nations and systems without ambiguity This initiative supports the advancement of digitization in the global defense landscape.

The MIP solution is centered around the C2IEDM, which is developed from a comprehensive analysis of allied information exchange needs It effectively models the data that combined joint component commanders require for communication The MIP common interface integrates the C2IEDM with several formally defined information exchange mechanisms (IEM).

The MIP programme is a voluntary initiative involving various nations and organizations, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, as well as the Regional Headquarters Allied Forces North Europe (RHQ AFNORTH) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT).

C-BML will utilize the C2IEDM logical data model to establish XML namespace semantics, including the development of grammars and ontology This initiative aims to enhance C2 feedback for the ongoing MIP data model development efforts.

NATO Modeling and Simulation Coalition BML Exploratory Team (ET-016) (DMSO, USA)

To enhance simulation interoperability and effectively support warfighters, the NATO M&S community acknowledges the necessity of an open framework that aligns C2 and M&S systems This framework aims to facilitate automatic and rapid initialization and control, ensuring seamless interaction between the two systems.

In September 2004, NATO established the multinational Exploratory Team (ET-016) to investigate the alignment of Command and Control (C2), Modeling and Simulation (M&S), and robotics systems The team is set to present its recommendations in October 2005, with plans for a subsequent three-year C-BML Technical Activity (TA) effort by NATO This initiative will collaborate with the integrated SISO C-BML and MSDL Special Groups and Product Development Groups to assess the ongoing development of the SISO standard.

The ET-016 initiative, along with the upcoming NATO MSG TA, provides a framework for evaluating the integrated SISO C-BML and MSDL SG and PDG efforts within a NATO context This Technical Activity aims to establish a key multinational user community that will offer SISO valuable insights on the development and effectiveness of the evolving integrated C2/M&S standards.

Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services (DMSO, USA)

The Object Management Group (OMG) Shared Operational Picture Exchange Services (SOPES) initiative aims to improve the capabilities of first responders, government agencies, military personnel, and civilian organizations in creating and maintaining a comprehensive, timely, and precise understanding of operational situations.

The solution includes both an Information Exchange Data Model (IEDM) and an Information Exchange Mechanism (IEM):

• Information Exchange Data Model (RFP C4I-2004-06-13)

• Trusted Information Exchange Mechanism (RFP C4I-2004-06-28)

• Logging and Auditing for Information Exchange Environments

• Unified Modeling Language (UML) Profiles for Trusted Information Exchange

The SOPES initiative aims to create a shared information environment that supports a diverse range of organizations, including First Responders such as police, fire departments, and emergency medical personnel, as well as government agencies at all levels, non-government organizations (NGOs), private volunteer organizations (PVOs), para-military and security agencies, and military branches across land, maritime, air, and space.

The MIP Joint Consultation Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) largely fulfills the SOPES IEDM specifications and is recognized by OMG as the primary candidate for the IEDM The SOPES IEM will outline a universal protocol for exchanging SOPES information, adaptable to various communication technologies Consequently, SOPES establishes a future industry standard for the exchange of plans and orders, benefiting C-BML implementers.

SINCE (Atlantic Consulting Services, USA)

The Simulation to Command and Control (C2) Information System Connectivity Experiments (SINCE) program aims to explore interoperability challenges through multinational C2 experiments Supported by C2 and Modeling & Simulation (M&S) systems, the program focuses on enhancing collaborative planning and execution in coalition settings This initiative is a bilateral collaborative project between the US and German Army.

The SINCEx1a program showcased a pivotal technical advancement through the implementation of a unified XML schema for various Command and Control (C2) products, including position reports, SPOT reports, operational orders, and more This W3C XML schema ensured that all instances of information exchange were well-formed and valid, facilitating effective communication during the experiment Additionally, publish and subscribe mechanisms were integrated for both C2 and Modeling & Simulation (M&S) systems, enabling the exchange of Java objects and RPR data, which enhanced collaboration and interoperability The filtering capabilities based on classification, source, content, time, and location allowed for a tailored information exchange during combat simulations, while the focus remained on unclassified coalition data To support current and future allies, a Web C2 Portal was developed, allowing for easy sharing of coalition domain items Furthermore, the architecture of the experimentation environment was represented in UML, identifying key use cases across four critical phases for network-centric C2 system integration The initial US Army BML prototype was utilized to streamline operator requirements and analyze BML as a common language for mission and task information interchange.

SINCE establishes a reliable foundation for creating a test bed environment that supports various coalition command and control (C2) technical and operational experiments These activities focus on defining, developing, evaluating, and demonstrating enhanced collaborative capabilities for coalition forces, particularly in dynamic and mobile military operational settings.

The SINCE experimentation environment establishes a consistent baseline for assessing interoperability among multinational Command and Control (C2) systems, driven by real-time events from Modeling and Simulation (M&S) systems This framework is essential for advancing combat scenarios, utilizing a user-definable/common operational picture (UDOP/COP) that enriches the experiments with both technical and operational insights.

The SINCEx1a results are crucial for future SINCE experiments and related initiatives, marking a significant advancement in the development of a comprehensive international Research and Development (R&D) program aimed at transitioning to Future Force and MIP The implementation of UML for experimental architecture design has been essential, while XML has enabled a unified coalition domain model, facilitating integration among diverse data models By utilizing existing C2 prototypes for planning and execution monitoring, and linking them to current M&S systems, we can create a dynamic operational environment that yields valuable feedback for improvements The SINCE experimentation environment will serve as a stable foundation for the experimentation, analysis, and evolution of Coalition BML concepts and capabilities.

SOKRATES (FGAN-FKIE, Germany)

In Germany, the FGAN-FKIE has created a prototype known as the SOKRATES system, which automates report analysis This innovative system processes reports written in natural language, extracts and analyzes the information, stores it in a database, and visually presents the data on a map.

The initial phase involves transforming reports into a formal representation through information extraction, as outlined by Hecking (2003, 2004) This formal representation utilizes an XML version of a feature-value structure, which is the standard format for unification-based processing systems in computational linguistics (Shieber, 1986; Bresnan, 2001) Subsequently, these representations are enhanced semantically using ontological processes (Schade).

2004) (Schade & Frey, 2004) Lastly, during the post-processing step, the results are visualized within a common operational picture as well as inserted into an underlying C2IEDM data base.

The SOKRATES system utilizes a formal representation and ontology component based on the C2IEDM framework, incorporating its taxonomy, attributes, and value restrictions While the formal representation resembles C-BML, a key distinction lies in action framing; C-BML employs a fixed frame system known as the 5Ws In contrast, SOKRATES adopts a "lexical driven" approach, where the frame system is dictated by the specific action type For instance, a rest-action includes a location-slot akin to C-BML's "WHERE," whereas a move-action features four distinct "WHERE-slots" for source, destination, path, and direction Additionally, SOKRATES enhances its complexity by permitting entire statements as arguments.

“intention-slot” which mirrors C-BML’s “WHY” The pros and cons of these differences as compared to C-BML need to be identified and assessed.

Task Analysis Leading to BML Vocabulary (AcuSoft, USA)

How can the requirements of an order/task be identified in a common way across the doctrine of the coalition? Key considerations include:

Regardless of the individual doctrines of coalition members, there are shared principles regarding the timing, location, and rationale behind their actions These principles, while common, are articulated in diverse ways within the unique language of each coalition member's doctrine.

• Given common terms exist, these terms provide a common computational language across all doctrine.

• The syntax, grammar, and vocabulary cannot be identified without a detailed understanding of the targeted ontology that is represented in doctrine.

• The “context” of the language changes when an order applies to a smart (human warrior) versus a dumb (synthetic force or autonomous robot with limited decision-making capability) unit.

• The information should be derived from the explicit language of the task

The analysis should operate under the assumption that the doctrine is accurate and not open to interpretation If any errors are identified in the task, they must be rectified before proceeding Analysts must refrain from making subjective interpretations, as doing so compromises the traceability of the language used, which could jeopardize the success of Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) processes.

The following activities need to be conducted:

• Perform a task analysis to identify the information that is provided with, or in context to, the specific order/task.

• Identify the information required, and information that results from situational understanding Information providing situational understanding is a required input for “dumb” actors/units.

To effectively specify the rationale behind various task input terms, it is crucial to highlight the significance of the "why" in relation to the mission This fundamental question serves as a firm constraint, guiding decision-making and ensuring alignment with overarching objectives By clearly articulating the reasons behind actions, organizations can enhance their strategic focus and foster a deeper understanding of their goals.

To ensure clarity and accessibility, all identified terms from the task should be contextualized within both the language and the doctrine This approach guarantees that the content is comprehensible to human readers while remaining suitable for computational analysis.

A conceptual basis and structure for this work is provided by the Mission toMeans Framework (MMF) (Hieb & Kearly, 2004).

This initiative aims to establish a methodology for defining language requirements tailored to specific communication tasks It encompasses both real (smart) units and robotic or simulated units, focusing on the necessary input terms to outline constraints or requirements Additionally, for less advanced units, it is essential to convey extra information that reflects situational understanding.

UK Research into BML (QinetiQ, UK)

QinetiQ has been assigned by the UK Ministry of Defence to evaluate the effectiveness of Battle Management Language (BML) as a technology that enhances interoperability within the proposed Interoperability Coherence Framework (ICF) under the "Training for Combat Readiness" research initiative To fully leverage Command and Control (C2) capabilities, it is essential that C2 information is communicated clearly and effectively between various C2 nodes and capabilities, including those of other UK services and allied nations.

To effectively implement the "train as you fight" concept for mission rehearsal and COAA, it is essential for command and control (C2) capabilities to clearly communicate with collective training, mission rehearsal, and decision support systems, facilitating bidirectional information exchange.

This requires an unambiguous structured language, rooted in doctrine, with the necessary protocols to enable communication.

The assessment evaluated the utility of a Battle Management Language (BML) without proposing a specific solution It concluded that a significant portion of a UK Brigade Operations Order (OPORD) could be effectively represented using an existing US BML format, which is derived from an improved version of the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) (Haines & Galvin, 2005).

BML, while less mature than C2IEDM and not yet utilized by operational systems, offers a promising method for translating complex operational orders into tasking for simulated forces This capability has the potential to lessen the workload of training support staff during exercise setup and execution Additionally, BML can serve as a foundation for establishing a standardized "tasking language" that effectively interprets orders from C4I systems and translates them into the required formats for various training systems It is essential to ensure that the BML approach aligns with UK doctrine and procedures.

Research in the UK suggests that a single architectural approach cannot effectively address integration challenges It recommends the creation of an Integration Coherence Framework (ICF) to outline guiding principles for the appropriate application of various architectural methodologies, such as US DoDAF/UK MoDAF, HLA, or XMSF Additionally, it highlights the importance of recognizing when existing off-the-shelf solutions are inadequate, which may necessitate the refinement of current approaches or the development of new ones.

BML has the potential to enhance future operational systems by effectively meeting their needs for information storage and exchange related to orders To promote the operational acceptance of a UK BML, it is essential to align it with established operational formats like C2IEDM.

As a result of the assessment a number of recommendations were made that are considered relevant to the development of a C-BML standard:

• The MoD should continue to actively support the NATO C-BML research and participate in planned demonstrations to ensure C-BML can support

• The MoD should participate in SISO activities to develop a C-BML standard to ensure UK needs are included.

• The MoD should develop a UK national BML to fully meet UK requirements for interoperability which can be mapped to any emerging NATO BML/C-BML standard.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) should develop a capability to showcase the benefits of a UK Battle Management Language (BML) to stakeholders, thereby mitigating risks in its development and supporting NATO's C-BML research This capability must illustrate the role of BML within the proposed Interoperability Framework (ICF), emphasizing its importance for international Command and Control (C2) interoperability and collective training The demonstration should clearly depict how BML can be generated from a C2 system, interpreted and utilized by simulations, and vice versa, ensuring seamless communication between C2 systems and simulations.

XML-based Tactical Language Research (Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is actively researching the application of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and web-based technologies in tactical systems, focusing on optimizing information representation and enhancing efficient information exchange across various systems.

• Undersea Warfare (USW) XML Working Group: employment of XML data formats and messaging within tactical systems.

• Global Information Grid (GIG) M&S Community of Interest Focus Groups:metadata, data mediation, and services supporting M&S on the GIG.

• Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle (AUV) Workbench: including Autonomous Vehicle Control Language (AVCL) as a representative BML for robotic forces.

Common Maneuver Networks (CMN) and Mobility COP (M-COP) focus on creating standardized data representations to enhance the sharing of maneuver network information between Modeling & Simulation (M&S) and Command & Control (C2) systems This initiative aims to establish a foundational framework for a Mobility COP, which includes efforts to formalize a GeoBML that accurately describes the operational battle space.

XMSF is actively advancing exemplary projects and community education to establish a comprehensive set of standards, profiles, and best practices for web-based military modeling and simulation This initiative capitalizes on the significant commercial investment in web technologies, ensuring a robust framework for future developments in the field.

• Model-based Communication Networks: creating producer/consumer data semantics for task-driven information exchange to achieve Valued

Information at the Right Time (VIRT).

• Naval BML: extending current Army and Air Force centric BML approaches to represent Naval plans and orders.

• Joint Tactical Integrated Data System (JTIDS): NATO project developing XML encodings of Link-16 messages and application of binary XML compression schemes for tactical data links.

• Coalition Secure Management and Operating System (COSMOS) Advanced Concept Technical Demonstration (ACTD): applying C2IEDM for core data representations in a coalition information processing network.

Broad technical interoperability in modeling and simulation (M&S) is achieved through open standards, XML-based markup languages, and cross-platform web services, facilitating diverse applications The XMSF project plays a crucial role in enhancing interoperability by utilizing XML data and messaging interchange, along with recommended practices for web-based M&S Significant research advancements have been made in establishing strong semantics, particularly through the W3C’s Semantic Web initiatives A key requirement in developing ontologies is the creation of complementary taxonomies applicable across various domains, enabling consistent data and service classification through precise vocabularies Additionally, establishing a consensual common meaning is essential; it necessitates a mechanism for defining term equivalence across different groups, known as ontology mapping, which fosters both extensibility and interoperability.

The Agent Markup Language (DAML) project has created an ontology repository to standardize service representations, enhancing interoperability in military operations The NATO-developed Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) is utilized for tactical operations, emphasizing the importance of standard semantics in fostering common understanding among services and coalition partners This development is crucial for creating effective ontologies for military operations orders, which include tactical elements essential for coordinated efforts.

The "who, what, when, where, and how" of an operation represents a crucial area that requires focused development NPS is actively meeting this demand through various projects and illustrative applications.

A crucial aspect of enhancing operational effectiveness is the establishment of a clear language for articulating the commander’s intent and delivering orders to various operational forces, including live, constructive, and robotic units The successful implementation of C-BML will enable precise communication, allowing autonomous agents and automated decision-support systems to effectively assist warfighters in increasingly vital joint and coalition operations.

Core C-BML References

In the past decade, various initiatives have aimed to establish a standardized language for interactions between Battle Command systems and Modeling & Simulation (M&S) systems, highlighting the need for a Battle Management Language Standard Key publications, including the Command and Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL) initiative, underscore the initial concept and feasibility of this standard Notably, early papers on CCSIL predate both the High-Level Architecture (HLA) and the formation of the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) Following CCSIL, the SISO C4I Track initiated a Study Group to develop recommendations for enhancing interoperability between Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence (C4I), and simulation systems, resulting in a report that surveyed common approaches and provided actionable recommendations Subsequently, multiple parallel initiatives emerged in various countries focused on developing a Battle Management Language, with additional references available in the extended bibliography in Appendix F.

In their 1995 informal report titled "Command Forces: An Extension of DIS Virtual Simulation," Dahmann, Salisbury, Booker, and Seidel explore advancements in defense simulation interoperability standards Presented at the Twelfth Workshop on Standards for the Interoperability of Defense Simulations, the authors discuss the implications of their research for enhancing virtual simulation capabilities within military operations For more details, the full report can be accessed at MITRE's website.

This is the first paper that mentions the future development of CCSIL and how this standard would be used in the DARPA Synthetic Theater of War (STOW)

Salisbury, M., “Command and Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL):Status Update,” MITRE Informal Report, Twelfth Workshop on Standards for the

Interoperability of Defense Simulations, 1995 (http://ms.ie.org/cfor/diswg9503/ diswg9503.pdf)

Groundbreaking work on structuring an Army Operations Order From the document:

The military's standard message sets often fall short because they depend on free text fields for human input, which can lead to ambiguity Current natural language interpretation software does not meet the necessary requirements for effective communication Instead, the CCSIL message set aims to offer highly structured and flexible formats to convey information more clearly than traditional natural language.

Hartzog, S M., Salisbury, M R., "Command Forces (CFOR) Program Status Report," Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Orlando, Florida, July 1996.

A look at the different CCSIL messages developed for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

MITRE, DARPA STOW ACTD version of the CCSIL documentation.

(http://ms.ie.org/cfor/)

The complete documentation for the CCSIL Specification Highlights are the representation of the US Army’s Operation Order and the Air Force’s Air Tasking Order.

Hieb, M R., Cosby, M., Griggs, L., McKenzie, F., Tiernan, T., and Zeswitz, S.,

“MRCI: Transcending Barriers between Live Systems and Simulations,” Paper 97S-SIW-197, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 1997 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

MRCI, a general C4I interface developed during STOW 97, utilized CCSIL as the simulation standard for Command and Control messages It effectively translated between CCSIL and widely-used C4I message formats like USMTF and OTH-Gold This implementation demonstrated the feasibility of generating clear and precise messages that convey complex orders within simulations.

Layman, G E., Conover, J., Kunkel, P., and Robins, D., “JMCIS/GCCS Interoperability with External Simulations,” Paper 97S-SIW-132, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 1997 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

A paper describing the Command and Control Architecture for STOW 97,placing the use of CCSIL in context.

In their paper titled “The High Level Architecture Command and Control Experiment – Lessons Learned in Designing an Extended Federation,” Lightner et al (1998) share valuable insights from the Simulation Interoperability Workshop The authors discuss key lessons learned in the design and implementation of extended federations within the High Level Architecture framework, emphasizing the importance of interoperability standards in simulation systems Their findings contribute to the ongoing development of effective command and control simulations, highlighting best practices and strategies for future projects.

An analytical evaluation of the MRCI Interface, again placing the use of CCSIL in context.

Carr, F H and Hieb, M R., “Issues and Requirements for Future C4ISR and M&S Interoperability,” 7th Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, 1998.

This paper presents a "Technical Reference Model" designed for the simulation of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, and Intelligence (C4I) information exchange, highlighting the exchange of order information as a key focus area within the model.

Hieb, M R., and Staver, M J., “The Army’s Approach to Modeling and Simulation Standards for C4I Interfaces,” Paper 98F-SIW-259, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 1998 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

This paper puts the exchange of C2 information in the context of a Standards Development program.

Kleiner, M S., Carey, S A., and Beach, J., “Communicating Mission-Type Orders to Virtual Commanders,” Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference, December 1998.

An innovative look at expressing commander’s intent in a structured format. This was the basis for the future US Army Battle Management Language work.

Paola, A R., and Ressler, R L., “Stimulating the Army Tactical Command and Control System Using the Run Time Manager: Concepts and Implications,” Paper 98S-SIW-162 Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Describes how the Run Time Manager C4I to Simulation interface used CCSIL Fire Support Messages to communicate to C4I devices.

Ressler, R., Hieb, M R., and Sudnikovich, W., “M&S/C4ISR Conceptual Reference Model,” Paper 99F-SIW-060, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Further development of the C4I to Simulation Technical Reference Model and identification of the need for standards in the area of expressing C2 Orders.

Timian, D H., Hieb, M R., Lacetera, J., Tolk, A., Wertman, C., and Brandt, K.,

“Report Out of the C4I Study Group,” Paper 00F-SIW-005, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Orders represent a crucial form of interaction that communicates Command and Control (C2) information However, translating this type of information has proven challenging with existing interfaces Currently, C4ISR systems lack the capability to generate and maintain C2 information consistently.

Carey, S., Kleiner, M., Hieb, M R and Brown, R., “Standardizing Battle Management Language – A Vital Move Towards the Army Transformation,” Paper 01F-SIW-067, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2001 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

This article outlines the essential concepts and principles for creating an Army Battle Management Language, as detailed in the Study Group report It emphasizes the innovative approach of utilizing emerging C4I standard databases to clarify and disambiguate military orders.

Ogren, J., and Fraka, M., “EAGLE Combat Model Battle Management Language (BML),” Powerpoint presentation, BML Symposium at Fort Leavenworth, KS, 25 April 2001.

Eagle was a very complete constructive Ground Combat simulation It used a very well constructed form of BML in its internal architecture.

Carey, S., Kleiner, M., Hieb, M R and Brown, R., “Standardizing Battle Management Language – Facilitating Coalition Interoperability,” Paper 02E-SIW-

005, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2002 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, London, England.

Extension of the BML concept described in Fall 2001 SIW paper 01F-SIW-067 to Joint and Coalition Operations.

Khimeche , L., and de Champs, P., “Courses of Action Analysis and C4I- Simulation Interoperability,” Paper 03F-SIW-028, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Innovative work on using C2IEDM for exchanging C2 information between Simulations and C2 Systems.

Tolk, A and Pullen, M., “Ideas for a Common Framework for Military M&S andC3I Systems,” Paper 03E-SIW-032, Simulation Interoperability StandardsOrganization, 2003 Euro Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Proposes BML as a common Operational Model for both C2 and Simulation Systems in Future C2 Architectures.

Sprinkle, R B., Heystek, D and Lovelady, S D., “Common Scenario Generation for Army M&S and C4ISR Systems,” Paper 03S-SIW-103, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Paper pointing out applicability of BML for Scenario Generation.

Hieb, M R., Sudnikovich, W., Tolk, A., and Pullen, J M., “Developing Battle Management Language into a Web Service,” Paper 04S-SIW-113, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Crystal City, VA.

Paper that describes how the US Army’s BML Proof of Principle demo was standardized (by using the C2IEDM) and made extensible (through XMSF protocols).

Hieb and Kearly (2004) present a methodology for integrating doctrine into modeling and simulation, focusing on the Battle Management Language (BML) and the Mission to Means Framework (MMF) Their work was showcased at the Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, organized by the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization This paper emphasizes the importance of aligning military doctrine with simulation techniques to enhance operational effectiveness.

Paper relating where BML fits in the Mission to Means Framework

Khimeche, L., and de Champs, P., “M&S in Decision Support for Courses of Action Analysis, APLET,” 04F-SIW-006, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.

Recommendation to standardize on C2IEDM for implementation of C-BML and discussion of BML in the context of a COAA system.

In their 2004 paper presented at the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Mayk and Klose explore the use of C2 applications and federated infrastructures to enhance integrated full-spectrum operational environments Their research emphasizes the importance of collaborative planning and interoperable execution in military operations, highlighting how these technologies can improve coordination and effectiveness in complex scenarios.

Description of the US-German Collaborative Program SINCE which has done extensive development of their own BML using the 5 Ws and adding “Which” and “How.”

Sudnikovich, W., Hieb, M R., Kleiner, M and Brown, R., “Developing the Army's Battle Management Language Prototype Environment,” Paper 04S-SIW-115, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Crystal City, VA.

Paper describing the US Army’s BML Proof of Principle demonstration,focusing on representing US Brigade/Battalion/Company Operations orders.

Tolk, A., Hieb, M R., Galvin, K., and Khimeche, L., “Coalition Battle Management Language,” Paper 04F-SIW-103, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, September.

Proposal for development of a BML for Coalition activities.

In their paper titled “Merging National Battle Management Language Initiatives for NATO Projects,” Tolk et al (2004) discuss the integration of various national battle management language initiatives to enhance NATO's military capabilities Presented at the RTA/MSG Conference in Koblenz, Germany, this work emphasizes the importance of simulation and modeling in addressing both new and existing military requirements within NATO The authors aim to foster collaboration among member nations to streamline communication and operational effectiveness.

Proposal to NATO to form a C-BML Technical Activity.

Turnitsa, C., Kovurri, S., Tolk, A., DeMasi, L., Dobbs, V., Sudnikovich, W.,

“Lessons Learned from C2IEDM Mappings Within XBML,” Paper 04F-SIW-111, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, September

Technical report on using the Coalition data model, the C2IEDM, to represent BML.

In their paper, "Implementing Battle Management Language: A Case Study Using the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model and C4I-M&S Reference Object Model," DeMasi et al explore the application of Battle Management Language (BML) within military simulations The study focuses on the integration of the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model and the C4I-M&S Reference Object Model, highlighting the importance of interoperability in simulation environments This research, presented at the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization conference, aims to enhance understanding and implementation of BML for improved command and control operations.

2005 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, April.

Work in structuring BML in the C2IEDM using the 5 Ws.

Garcia, J., “Technical and Operational Constraints for Web Based M&S Services for the Global Information Grid,” Paper 05S-SIW-011, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 2005 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, April.

Describes BML as a technical enabler for the GIG.

Khimeche , L., and de Champs, P., “APLET's Courses of Action Modeling : A Contribution to CBML,” Paper 05S-SIW-018, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring 2005 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, April.

Description of French use of a BML and recommendations when supporting a Course of Action Analysis system.

Perme, D., Tolk, A., Sudnikovich, W P., Pullen, J M., and Hieb, M R.,

“Integrating Air and Ground Operations within a Common Battle ManagementLanguage,” Paper 05S-SIW-154, Simulation Interoperability StandardsOrganization, Spring 2005 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA,April.

Paper that shows how the XBML prototype can be extended to the Air Domain from the Ground Domain by reusing the 5Ws and C2IEDM implementation.

Roberts and Sudnikovich's paper, presented at the Spring 2005 Simulation Interoperability Workshop in San Diego, discusses enhancing interoperability between Modeling & Simulation (M&S) and Command & Control (C2) systems They propose the application of Battle Management Language (BML) to the SINCE Program as a solution to achieve higher levels of integration This approach aims to improve communication and functionality within military simulations and operational environments.

Detailed explanation of how BML affects simulation behaviors from a US- German Collaboration.

In their 2005 paper presented at the Simulation Interoperability Workshop in San Diego, Tolk and Blais discuss the importance of taxonomies, ontologies, and battle management languages in enhancing coalition operations They provide recommendations for the Coalition BML Study Group, emphasizing the need for standardized frameworks to improve communication and interoperability among military forces Their insights aim to facilitate better decision-making and operational effectiveness in complex simulation environments.

Paper giving specific recommendations for C-BML development within SISO.

In their 2005 paper presented at the Simulation Interoperability Workshop in San Diego, Tolk et al explore web services that utilize the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) for effective data mediation and storage The authors emphasize the importance of interoperability in simulation environments, highlighting how their proposed solutions can enhance data management and facilitate seamless information exchange among various systems This research contributes to the ongoing development of standards that improve simulation capabilities and operational efficiency in military and defense applications.

Paper detailing how the XBML work can be standardized further in the area of prototols with C2IEDM Web Services.

Phased Approach

The C-BML SG advocates for the creation of standardized products alongside supportive guidance materials, emphasizing collaboration with the MSDL PDG's standardization initiatives Additionally, the Base Object Model (BOM) PDG products will be assessed for potential integration into this development process.

The development of C-BML standards will occur in phases, leading to incremental versions that enhance capabilities Throughout all phases, the SG advises utilizing C2IEDM and its successors, such as JC3IEDM, as foundational elements for C-BML reference implementations and standards Each iteration of the C-BML standard will encompass distinct features and improvements.

• An Information Exchange content and structure specification

• An Information Exchange Mechanism specification

The SG has concluded that each standard product version should be accompanied by a guideline product that clarifies the use of C-BML and includes practical examples Additionally, any new version that extends or replaces a previous one will outline a migration procedure.

The SG proposes that the C-BML Standard evolve over time through three phases:

Version I (April 2006-2007) establishes a comprehensive data model to clearly define military orders, utilizing C2IEDM as a foundational framework while extending it for compatibility with C2, M&S, and robotic systems The C-BML Standard will outline a data model derived from a subset of C2IEDM, alongside specifications for information exchange content and structure presented as an XML schema Additionally, an information exchange mechanism will be defined within a WSDL document This standard, along with recommended guidelines, is set for completion in April.

2007 An initial version of the C-BML XML schema will be evaluated by the parallel NATO MSG-048 effort (see Section 2.12).

Version 2.0 of the C-BML Standard, set to be developed between April 2006 and 2008, aims to introduce a comprehensive grammar encompassing syntax, semantics, and vocabulary for Information Exchange, alongside content and structure specifications This initiative seeks to rigorously define tasks in a well-documented and parse-able manner Following the establishment of a tasking grammar, the grammar will also be expanded to include reporting capabilities Recognizing the shared need for tasking and reporting grammar in both C-BML and MSDL initiatives, a joint C-BML/MSDL Tiger team will be formed to address this requirement The standardization process will culminate in the finalization of recommended guidelines for both C-BML and MSDL by April 2008.

Version 3.0 of the C-BML Standard, developed between April 2006 and April 2010, aims to establish a battle management ontology for enhanced conceptual interoperability This standardization initiative, which includes recommended guidelines, is expected to continue until at least April 2010 While the Study Group acknowledges the promise of ontology-based solutions, it also recognizes the need for further research and consensus on processes beyond SISO to develop effective applications.

The phased approach for delivering the C-BML Standard is deemed optimal, yet the SG acknowledges that foundational research will commence immediately with the establishment of the PDG, independent of the scheduled phases Consequently, the start dates for each phase align To facilitate parallel research efforts for each phase, the SG advises the initial formation of all three subgroups within the C-BML PDG.

Other Considerations

The C2IEDM is recognized as a leading information hub; however, it may require enhancements to fulfill the needs of the Modeling and Simulation (M&S) community Research by Franceschini et al (2004) and Tolk et al (2004) indicates that the resolution requirements of simulation systems are not adequately addressed across all domains Consequently, it is essential for the members of the PDG to collaborate with the Phase 1 subgroup and the MIP to identify the necessary extensions.

XML facilitates the distinction between data definition and content, but it does not guarantee that the receiving system accurately interprets the exchanged data To ensure proper application, additional standards may be necessary The SG should assess these standards for potential future enhancements to core data models like C2IEDM.

Phase 2 work activities may need to include analysis of the representation of multi-national tasks using C2IEDM constructs (e.g., when the US talks about

In Canada, Australia, and the UK, the phrase "Dominate Key Terrain" emphasizes the importance of gaining and maintaining control over land areas While the terminology aims to provide a general framework for describing various tasks, missions, and operations, further efforts may be necessary to standardize its usage within the Military Integration Process (MIP) Notably, Australian analysts have created an initial mapping of task lists derived from country-specific resources from Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US to aid in the development of the ASJETS tool.

The phased approach is consistent with previously published recommendations(Tolk & Blais, 2005):

(1) XML, C2IEDM, and the glossary of used terms as the initial set of standards for C-BML.

(2) Establishment of subgroups addressing the challenges of extending theC2IEDM, establishing a C-BML ontology, and evaluating additional standards applicable to all three C-BML domains of C2 devices, M&S systems, and robotic systems.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

The C-BML Study Group makes the following recommendations:

We urge SISO to approve the Product Nomination, as our literature review and survey of related projects reveal a strong consensus within the international C2 and M&S communities for a standardized Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML).

We advise SISO to create a Product Development Group (PDG) to advance the C-BML standard The C-BML Study Group (SG) has assembled a team of experts from various services and countries committed to supporting this standardization initiative A preliminary Product Nomination is included in Appendix B of this report to facilitate the standardization process.

We suggest that SISO adopt a phased development strategy for the standard, as this incremental approach benefits the C2 and M&S communities by providing early access to initial and evolving products for experimentation and application Additionally, technical feedback from the community's use of the standard will guide the PDG in both its implementation and documentation efforts.

• We recommend that the C-BML PDG be separate from a proposed MSDL PDG The C-BML standard will focus on C2/M&S data interchange; the

MSDL standard will focus on C2 and simulation system initialization.

We advise the C-BML PDG to work closely with the MSDL PDG in areas of shared interest, particularly in developing a military tasking grammar Establishing a collaborative relationship with the MSDL will enhance both groups' efforts and outcomes.

SG was formed to support the SG initiative, with numerous participants involved in both efforts These initiatives will persist to guarantee complete compatibility between the two standardization efforts, focusing on developing complementary capabilities.

• We recommend that the C-BML PDG maintain engagement with C2 community to ensure joint ownership and development of the standard.

The primary benefit of the standard lies in enhancing warfighting capabilities by promoting better interoperability between command and control (C2) systems and simulation technologies, while also ensuring the effective integration of emerging robotic systems within the broader battle space.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Andersen, W., and Peterson, B (2001) “An Ontology of Modern Military Organizations and their Structure,” In Working Notes of the IJCAI-2001

Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, Seattle, Washington, 6

Bresnan, J (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax, Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishers,

Carey, S., Kleiner, M., Hieb, M R., and Brown, R (2001) “Standardizing Battle Management Language – A Vital Move Towards the Army Transformation,” Paper 01F-SIW-067, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, 2001.

Carlton, T., Jones, D., Kent, J., and Randall, R (2005) Output 3f Training for Combat Readiness: Impact of Future C4I and ISTAR Capability on Training for the Future Land Battle, MDBE-04-10-001-07, QINETIQ/05/00532/1.0, 31 March 2005.

DoD (2001) The Defense Acquisition System, DoD Directive 5000.1 with Change

1, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 4 January 2001.

DoD (2003) Department of Defense Net-Centric Data Strategy, Department of Defense, Chief Information Officer, Washington, DC, 9 May 2003.

DoD (2005) Adaptive Planning Roadmap, Final Draft, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 3 January 2005.

Franceschini, D., Franceschini, R., Burch, R., Sherrett, R., and Abbott, J (2004).

“Specifying Scenarios Using the Military Scenario Definition Language,” Paper 04F-SIW-068, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, September 2004.

Gruber, T R (1993) “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” Knowledge Acquisition, 5:199-220, 1993.

Gustavson, P., Scrudder, R., Lutz, R., and Bachman, J (2005) “Understanding the BOM Metadata and Making It Work For You,” Paper 05S-SIW-084, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, April 2005.

Haines, P., and Galvin, K (2005) Assessment of Implementing a UK Operations Order in BML, QINETIQ/KI/C&IS/TA050984, March 2005.

Hecking, M (2003) “Information Extraction from Battlefield Reports,”

Proceedings of the 8th International C2 Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Command and Control Research Program (CCRP),

Hecking, M (2004) “How to Represent the Content of Free-form BattlefieldReports,” Proceedings of the 9th International C2 Research and Technology

Symposium (ICCRTS), Command and Control Research Program (CCRP),

Hieb and Kearly (2004) present a comprehensive methodology for integrating doctrine into modeling and simulation, focusing on the Battle Management Language (BML) and the Mission to Means Framework (MMF) Their work, featured in Paper 04F-SIW-110 at the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop in Orlando, emphasizes the importance of standardization in simulation interoperability This approach aims to enhance the effectiveness of military operations by providing a structured framework for translating mission objectives into actionable strategies.

Hieb, M R., Tolk, A., Sudnikovich, W P., and Pullen, J M (2004a) “Developing Extensible Battle Management Language to Enable Coalition Interoperability,” Paper 04E-SIW-064, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, June 2004.

The research presented by Hieb et al (2004) at the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium focuses on the Extensible Battle Management Language (XBML) This methodology aims to enhance command and control capabilities in network-centric warfare by enabling web integration The study highlights the importance of developing flexible and interoperable systems to improve military operations and decision-making processes in modern warfare environments.

IEEE (2005) Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO WG) Home Page, Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, http://suo.ieee.org

JCS (2004) The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC, 2004.

Khimeche, L., and de Champs, P (2003) “Courses of Action Analysis and C4I- Simulation Interoperability,” 03F-SIW-028, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 2003.

Khimeche, L., and de Champs, P (2004) “M&S in Decision Support for Courses of Action Analysis, APLET,” 04F-SIW-006, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 2004.

Khimeche, L., and de Champs, P (2005) “APLET's Courses of Action Modeling:

A Contribution to CBML,” Paper 05S-SIW-018, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop San Diego, CA, April 2005.

Kleiner, M S., Carey, S A., and Beach, J (1998) “Communicating Mission-Type Orders to Virtual Commanders,” Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation

Lambert, C S (2005) "Improving Unity of Effort and Simplicity in Operational Command and Control Processes Through a Common, Joint Language,” Master's Thesis, Naval War College, Department of Joint Military Operations, May 2005.

Norbraten, T D (2004) “Utilization of Forward Error Correction (FEC)Techniques with Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema-based BinaryCompression (XSBC) Technology,” Master’s Thesis, Naval PostgraduateSchool, Monterey, CA, December 2004.

Schade, U (2004) “Automatic Report Processing,” Proceedings of the 9 th

International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), Copenhagen,

In their 2004 paper, Schade and Frey explore the significance of ontology in the processing of military reports, emphasizing its role beyond traditional information extraction methods Presented at KONVENS 2004 in Vienna, their work highlights how ontological frameworks can enhance the understanding and organization of natural language data within military contexts The authors argue that integrating ontology into report processing can lead to improved data interpretation and decision-making in military operations.

Shieber, S M (1986) An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to

Grammar, Volume 4 of CSLI Lecture Notes Series, Center for the Study of

Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 1986.

SISO (2005a) Base Object Model (BOM) Template Specification, SISO-STD- 003.1-Draft-V0.11, 27 June 2005

SISO (2005b) Guide for Base Object Model (BOM) Use and Implementation, SISO-STD-003.0-DRAFT-V0.11, 27 June 2005

Sudnikovich, W., Hieb, M R., Kleiner, M., and Brown, R (2004) “Developing the Army's Battle Management Language Prototype Environment,” Paper 04S- SIW-115, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Crystal City, VA, 2004.

Tolk, A (2005) Coalition Battle Management Language Study Group Face-to- Face Meeting, Report No 532921-2005/01, Virginia Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA, 22 March 2005.

Tolk, A., and Blais, C L (2005) “Taxonomies, Ontologies, and Battle Management Languages – Recommendations for the C-BML Study Group,” Paper 05S-SIW-007, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, San Diego, CA, April 2005.

Tolk, A., Galvin, K., Hieb, M R., and Khimeche, L (2004a) “Coalition Battle Management Language,” Paper 04F-SIW-103, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando,

In their 2004 paper presented at the RTA/MSG Conference in Koblenz, Germany, Tolk et al discuss the integration of National Battle Management Language initiatives for NATO projects The authors emphasize the importance of merging these initiatives to effectively address both new and existing military requirements within NATO Their research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on enhancing military operations through improved communication and management strategies.

Turnitsa, C (2005) “Extending the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model,”

Proceedings of the 2005 Summer Computer Simulation Conference,

Vego, M (2002) Plans and Orders, Joint Military Operations Department, UnitedStates Naval War College, NWC 2159A, Newport, RI, September 2002.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

The following members of the SG are thanked for their contributions to the final report.

• Executive Summary – Curt Blais, Erik Chaum, Kevin Galvin, Andreas Tolk, Rob Wittman

• Section 1 – Introduction – Curt Blais, Kevin Galvin, Mike Hieb

• Section 1.1.4 – Operational Need and Expected Benefits – Scott Lambert

In Section 2, titled "Related Works," the contributions of several notable individuals are highlighted, including Curt Blais, Bruce Carlton, Timothy Carlton, Patrick DeChamps, Kevin Galvin, Buhrman Gates, Paul Gustavson, Per Gustavsson, Mike Hieb, Derek Jones, Eugene Joseph, Lionel Khimeche, Jerry Merritt, Paul Morley, Lisa Pereira, Mike Powers, Andreas Tolk, and Rob Wittman Their collective efforts provide a comprehensive overview of the field, showcasing diverse insights and advancements.

• Section 3 – Products and Plan for Developing a C-BML Standard – Kevin Galvin, Mike Hieb

• Section 5 – References – Curt Blais, Kevin Galvin, Mike Hieb, Chuck Turnitsa, Andreas Tolk

• Section 6 – Acknowledgements – Curt Blais, Kevin Galvin

• Appendix A – Curt Blais, Kevin Galvin and Andreas Tolk

• Appendix B – Curt Blais, Eugene Joseph, Chuck Turnitsa, Robb Wittman

• Appendix C – Curt Blais, Chuck Turnitsa

• Appendix D – Curt Blais, Kevin Galvin, Mike Hieb, Chuck Turnitsa,Andreas Tolk

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A – Overview of the March 2005 C-BML Study Group

The Coalition Battle Management (C-BML) Study Group convened from March 7-9, 2005, at the Virginia Modeling Analysis and Simulation Center (VMASC) in Norfolk, Virginia, under the leadership of Major Kevin Galvin from QinetiQ and hosted by Dr Andreas Tolk of ODU/VMASC This significant meeting gathered 35 international experts, including representatives from five universities: Carnegie Mellon, George Mason, Naval Postgraduate School, ODU, and the University of Texas, along with participants from Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States For a comprehensive overview of the discussions and outcomes, refer to the full report by Tolk (2005).