Using meta-level ontology relations to measure conceptual alignment and interoperability of simulation models

Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1090-1099

  Yilmaz, Levent ^a  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALIGNMENT; CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE REUSABILITY; FORMAL METHODS; GRAPH THEORY; INTEROPERABILITY; ONTOLOGY; STANDARDS; TECHNOLOGY;

APPLICATION DOMAINS; COMPLEX SIMULATION SYSTEMS; DISTANCE METRICS; GRAPH-THEORETIC APPROACH; META LEVELS; META MODELLING; META-GRAPH; META-MODELS; SIMULATION MODELLING; TECHNICAL INTEROPERABILITY; TECHNICAL STANDARDS;

MODELS;

EID: 42649131266     PISSN: 08917736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2007.4419708     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Banks, D. and Carley K. 1994. Metric inference for social networks. Journal of Classification, 11: 121-149.
2. Buckley, F. and Harary, F. 1990. Distance in graphs, Addison Wesley, Redwood City, CA.
3. Carr, F.H and Myers, L. 2003. Interoperability and reuse through a modeling and simulation common operating environment," In Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop 035-SIW-016, Spring 2003.
4. Davis, K. P. and Anderson A. R. 2003, Improving the composability of department of defense models and simulations, RAND Technical report available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG101/ (last accessed April 2007).
5. Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (2004). "Composable Mission Space Environments," available at https://www.dmso.mil/public/warfighter/ cmse (last accessed April 2007).
6. Falkenhainer, B. and Forbus, K. 1991. Compositional modeling: Finding the right model for the right job. Artificial Intelligence, 51:95-143.
7. Guttenberg, J. 2003. The elusive nature of components. In Improving the Composability of Department of Defense Models and Simulations. RAND Technical report, available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG101/ (last accessed April 2007).
8. Harary, F. 1959. Status and contrastatus. Sociometry, 22: 23-43.
9. Langfield-Smith, K. and Wirth, A. 1992. Measuring differences between cognitive maps. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(12): 1135-1150.
10. National Research Council 2007. Defense modeling, simulation, and analysis: Meeting the challenge. The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11726.html [last accessed April 2007].
11. Pace, K. D 1999. Development and documentation of a simulation conceptual model. In Proceedings of the Fall 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19, 1999.
12. Page, E., and Opper, J. 1999. Observation on the complexity of composable simulation. In Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference, 553-560.
13. Petty, D. M., Weisel, W. E., and Mielke, R. R. 2003. Computational complexity of selecting components for composition". In Proceedings of the Software Interoperability Conference, 03F-SIW-073, Fall 2003.
14. Tolk, A. and Muguira, A. J. 2003. The levels of conceptual interoperability model. In Proceedings of the 2003 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop Orlando, Florida, September 2003.
15. Tolk, A. 2004. Composable mission spaces and M&S repositories - Applicability of open standards". In Proc. Of Spring 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), available at http://www.sisostds.org.
16. Tolk, A. and Diallo Y. S. 2005. Model-based data engineering for web services". IEEE Internet Computing, 9(4): 65-70.
17. Yilmaz, L. 2004. On the need for contextualized introspective simulation models to improve reuse and composability of defense simulations. Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 1(3): 135-145.
18. Yilmaz, L. and Ören, T. 2006. Prospective issues in simulation model composability: Basic concepts to advance theory, methodology, and technology. The MSIAC's M&S Journal Online, vol. 2, September 2006, pp. 1-7.