Conceptual modeling evolution within US defense communities: The view from the simulation interoperability workshop

Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 423-450

  Pace, Dale K ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940974514     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/9781439810385     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. About SISO. 2009. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) Web site, http://www.sisostds.org, accessed on March 18, 2010.
2. AIAA. 1998. American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA G-077, Guide for Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation.
3. ASME. 2006. American Society for Mechanical Engineers Guide V&V 10-2006, Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics.
4. Blair, M., and M. Love. 2002. Scenario based affordability assessment tool. NATO RTO AVT Symposium on Reduction of Military Vehicle Acquisition Time and Cost through Advanced Modelling and Virtual Simulation, 22-23 April 2002, Paris, France (RTO-MP-089).
5. Borah, J. 2005. Simulation Conceptual Modeling (SCM) final report, submitted to SISO Standards Activities Committee. SISO Web site, http://www.sisostds.org, accessed on March 18, 2010.
6. Borah, J. 2003. Simulation conceptual modeling study group gets rolling. Simulation technology magazine 6(3).
7. Borah, J. 2002. Conceptual modeling-How do we move forward?-The next step. Paper 054 in Fall 2002 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
8. Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Master Plan, DoDD 5000.59-9P, October 1995.
9. Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office. 2006. VV&A Recommended Practices Guide, RPG Build 3.0. http://vva.msco.mil/ (accessed January 26, 2009).
10. DMSO. 1999. Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, High Level Architecture Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP) Model, Version 1.5, December 8, 1999.
11. Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS). 1995. A glossary of modeling and simulation terms for distributed interactive simulations. Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida.
12. Druid, L., K. Johansson, P. Stahl, and P. Asplund. 2006. Methods and tools for simulation conceptual modeling, Paper 06E-SIW-029 in 2006 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
13. Firat, C. 2001. A knowledge based look at Federation Conceptual Model development. Paper 024 in European 2001 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
14. Heavey, C., and J. Ryan. 2006. Process modelling support for the conceptual modelling phase of a simulation project. In Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, 801-808.
15. Hollenbach, J.W. and W.L. Alexander. 1997. Executing the modeling and simulation strategy, making simulation systems of systems a reality. Winter Simulation Conference 1997 Proceedings.: 948-954.
16. IEEE Std 1516.3-2003, Recommended Practice for High Level Architecture (HLA) Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP).
17. IEEE Std 1516.4-2007. 2007. IEEE Recommended Practice for Verification, Validation, and Accreditation of a Federation: An Overlay to the High Level Architecture Federation Development and Execution Process.
18. Kabilan, V., and V. Majtahed. 2006. Introducing DCMF-O: Ontology suite for defence conceptual modelling. Paper 028 in European 2006 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
19. Kaminski, P. 1996. DoD USD (AT&L) Memorandum, subject: DoD High-Level Architecture (HLA) for Simulations, September 10, 1996.
20. Krut, T., and N. Zahman. 1996. Domain Analysis Workshop Report for the Automated Prompt Response System Domain, Special Report CMU/SEI-96-SR-001, May 1996.
21. Lewis, R.O., and G.Q. Coe. 1997. A comparison between the CMMS and the conceptual model of the federation. Paper97F-SIW-001 in Fall 1997 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
22. Lutz, B. 2003. IEEE 1516.3: The HLA Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP). Paper 03E-SIW-022 in 2003 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
23. Mayer, R.J. and R.E. Young. 1984. Automation of simulation model generation from system specifications. In Proceedings of the 1984 Winter Simulation Conference, 570-574.
24. Metz, M. 2000. Comparing the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) conceptual model to a conceptual model standard. Paper 129 in Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
25. Mojtahed, V., M. Lozano, P. Svan, et al. 2005. DCMF: Defence Conceptual Modeling Framework. Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) Report FOI-R--1754-SE, November 2005.
26. NASA Tech Briefs. 2006. Adaptive Modeling Language and Its Derivatives. June 1, 2006. http://www.techbriefs.com/content/view/116/34/ (accessed August 2009).
27. Oren, T.I. 2005. Toward the body of knowledge of modeling and simulation. Paper 2025, Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2005.
28. Pace, D. 2001. Impact of federate conceptual model quality and documentation on assessing HLA federation validity. Paper 014 in European 2001 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
29. Pace, D. 2000. Conceptual model development for C4ISR simulations. In 5th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), 24-26 October 2000, Canberra, Australia.
30. Pace, D. 1999. Development and documentation of a simulation conceptual model. Paper 017 in Fall 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
31. Robinson, S. 2006a. Issues in conceptual modelling: Setting a research agenda. In Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06), 165-174. Birmingham, UK: Operational Research Society.
32. Robinson, S. 2006b. Conceptual modeling for simulation: Issues and research requirements. In Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, 792-800.
33. Schlesinger, S. 1979. Terminology for model credibility. Simulation 32(3): 103-104.
34. Sheehan, J., T. Prosser, H. Conlay, et al. 1998. Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS): Basic concepts, advanced techniques, and pragmatic examples. Paper 127 in Spring 1998 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
35. Tanriover, R., and S. Bilgen. 2007. An inspection approach for conceptual models in notations derived from UML: A case study. In 22nd International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences, 2007, International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences (ISCIS) 2007.
36. Zeigler, B.P. 1999. A theory-based conceptual terminology for M&S VV&A. Paper 064 in Spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.