IDEAS Group

The IDEAS Group is the International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification for exchange Group. The deliverable of the project is a data exchange format for military Enterprise Architectures. The scope is four nation (plus NATO as observers) and covers MODAF (UK), DoDAF (USA), DNDAF (Canada) and the Australian Defence Architecture Framework. The initial scope for exchange is the architectural data required to support coalition operations planning -

  • Systems - communications systems, networks, software applications, etc.
  • Communications links between systems
  • Information specifications - the types of information (and their security classifications) that the comms architecture will handle
  • Platforms & facilities.
  • System & operational functions (activities)
  • People & organizations
  • Architecture meta-data - who owns it, who was the architect, name, version, description, etc.

The work has begun with the development of a formal ontology to specify the data exchange semantics. The W3C Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL) will be the format used for data exchange. A demonstration of multinational interoperability is scheduled for September 2007, based on exchanging process models for casualty tracking.

Read more about IDEAS Group:  The Need For Architecture Interoperability, Military Application, Ontology, Implementation, IDEAS Publications & Presentations

Famous quotes containing the words ideas and/or group:

    “We are told to maintain constitutions because they are constitutions, and what is laid down in those constitutions?... Certain great fundamental ideas of right are common to the world, and ... all laws of man’s making which trample on these ideas, are null and void—wrong to obey, right to disobey. The Constitution of the United States recognizes human slavery; and makes the souls of men articles of purchase and of sale.”
    —Anna Elizabeth Dickinson (1842–1932)

    “Unless a group of workers know their work is under surveillance, that they are being rated as fairly as human beings, with the fallibility that goes with human judgment, can rate them, and that at least an attempt is made to measure their worth to an organization in relative terms, they are likely to sink back on length of service as the sole reason for retention and promotion.”
    —Mary Barnett Gilson (1877–?)