Ontology of Military Planning and Operations Assessment - Revision history

Phismith at 15:05, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T15:05:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 30 November 2014
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?		The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?
	----		----

	'''Schedule'''		'''Schedule'''

Line 48:		Line 47:
	:Conclusions		:Conclusions


	16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants		16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants
	:Exploratory session to allow critical review, presentation of alternative approaches, identification of potential secondary uses		:Exploratory session to allow critical review, presentation of alternative approaches, identification of potential secondary uses

			----
	'''Background'''		'''Background'''

	*[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/document_ontology/ Document Acts]		*[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/document_ontology/ Document Acts]
	*[http://~~ncor~~.buffalo.edu/~~plan-ontology~~/~~planning-ontology-draft-2014-09-23.xlsx Planning~~ Ontology ~~Draft (.xlsx)~~]		*[http://ncorwiki.buffalo.edu/index.php/Distributed_Development_of_a_Shared_Semantic_Resource#Publications Papers on Military Ontology]
	*[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl Planning Ontology Draft (.owl)]		*[http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl Planning Ontology Draft (.owl)]
	*[http://milportal.ncor.buffalo.edu/ontologies Military Ontologies]		*[http://milportal.ncor.buffalo.edu/ontologies Military Ontologies]

Phismith at 15:01, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T15:01:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 30 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''The Living Plan'''
			:Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.
			----

	Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 [http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/ Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security] (STIDS) Conference		Tutorial organized as part of the 2014 [http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/ Semantic Technologies for Intelligence, Defense, and Security] (STIDS) Conference
	*Date: November 18, 2014		*Date: November 18, 2014
Line 6:		Line 10:
	The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?		The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?
	----		----
	~~'''The Living Plan'''~~
	:Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.
	~~----~~
	'''Schedule'''		'''Schedule'''

Phismith at 15:01, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T15:01:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 30 November 2014
Line 6:		Line 6:
	The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?		The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?
	----		----
	Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.		'''The Living Plan'''
			:Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.
	----		----
	'''Schedule'''		'''Schedule'''

Phismith at 15:00, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T15:00:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 30 November 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:

	The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?		The background of this tutorial is a US Air Force Research Laboratory initiative to transform Air Force planning and operations assessment from a disjointed static approach based on paper documents into a unified dynamic approach based on a computational 'living plan'. Part of this initiative will rest on the development of an ontology of plans and of military operations, viewing the latter as forming a three-stage cycle of plan specification, plan execution, and post-execution review. This cycle is seen as continuously unfolding on the strategic, operational and tactical levels – hence 'living plan'. A special role is played by the issue of devising a framework for the coordination of collaborative agency across large organizations. How can we build feedback mechanisms into the planning and outcomes assessment process in such a way as to enable evolutionary improvement in the framework over time?
			----
			Erik Thomsen, Fred Read, William Duncan, Tatanya Malyuta and Barry Smith, “[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T02_ThomsenEtAl.pdf Ontological Support for Living Plan Specification, Execution and Evaluation]”, Proceedings of the Conference on Semantic Technology in Intelligence, Defense and Security, Fairfax, VA, (STIDS 2014), CEUR, vol. 1304, 10-17.
	----		----
	'''Schedule'''		'''Schedule'''

Phismith at 17:33, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:33:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 22 November 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary		:Why planning needs a controlled vocabulary
	::An Example: The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus		::An Example: The CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) Thesaurus
	~~::Why the CALL Thesaurus will not work~~
	:Need for a plan ontology as part of a suite of interoperable military ontology modules		:Need for a plan ontology as part of a suite of interoperable military ontology modules
	:Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture		:Basic Formal Ontology as upper level architecture
Line 20:		Line 19:
	::The Information Artifact Ontology		::The Information Artifact Ontology
	::Anatomy of a plan specification		::Anatomy of a plan specification
	:Elements of the planning process		:Elements of the planning process: Informational, Mental, Action-related
	~~::Information elements~~
	::Mental ~~elements~~
	::Action-related ~~elements~~
	:What is the living plan?		:What is the living plan?
	:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology		:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology based on military doctrine
	::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]		::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]
	::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/1-Smith-2.pptx		::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/1-Smith-2.pptx here]

	13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]		13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]

Phismith at 17:31, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:31:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 22 November 2014
Line 41:		Line 41:

	15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/3-Thomsen.pptx Slides]		15:00 Erik Thomsen (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/3-Thomsen.pptx Slides]
	:~~Realizing a computational framework for the living plan~~		:Motivations and approach
	~~:Modules (phases in the cycle):~~		:Types
	~~::Situational Awareness~~		:Typed ontologies
	~~::Plan Development~~		:Typed Ontology-driven planning systems
	~~::Plan Review and Selection~~		:Conclusions
	~~::Plan Commitment (transforming selected plan specification into plan)~~
	~~::Plan Absorption~~
	~~::Plan Communication (plans~~ and ~~subplans to be executed by corresponding sub-units)~~
	:~~:Plan Execution~~
	:~~:Plan Evaluation and Operations / Outcomes Assessment (actual vs. predicted outcomes)~~
	:~~The underlying multidimensional information system~~
	~~:Data ingestion of multi~~-~~channel information~~
	~~::Kinetic sensors~~
	:~~:video~~
	~~::HUMINT~~

	16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants		16:30 BS, FR, ET and tutorial participants

Phismith at 17:30, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:30:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 22 November 2014
Line 24:		Line 24:
	::Mental elements		::Mental elements
	::Action-related elements		::Action-related elements
	~~:(Hidden slides on the ontology of deontic elements)~~
	:What is the living plan?		:What is the living plan?
	:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology		:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology

Phismith at 17:29, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:29:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 22 November 2014
Line 31:		Line 31:

	13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]		13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]
	:~~Review~~ of ~~existing military~~ planning ~~and operations assessment regimes~~		:The current state of planning
	::~~APEX~~		::Strategic level
	:~~Identification of resulting problems~~		::Operations level
	:~~Gap~~ assessment		::Ops assessment
	:~~Need~~: ~~Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi~~-~~level planning agencies [http~~:~~//ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Smith.pptx here]~~		::Re-tasking
			:What works; what doesn’t
			:What’s needed

	14:40 Break		14:40 Break

Phismith at 17:28, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:28:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 22 November 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology		:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology
	::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]		::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]
	::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [		::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/1-Smith-2.pptx

	13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]		13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]

Phismith at 17:24, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T17:24:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 22 November 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology		:Appendix: Draft Plan Ontology
	::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]		::See current version of the ontology [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/planning-ontology-draft.owl here]
			::See additional slides on the ontology of deontic elements and on collaborative plan execution [

	13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]		13:50 Frederick Reed (Charles River Analytics) [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Reed.pptx Slides]
Line 34:		Line 35:
	:Identification of resulting problems		:Identification of resulting problems
	:Gap assessment		:Gap assessment
	:Need: Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi-level planning agencies		:Need: Ontology for Smart Information Grids for multi-level planning agencies [http://ncor.buffalo.edu/plan-ontology/STIDS-Tutorial-2014/2-Smith.pptx here]

	14:40 Break		14:40 Break