空间科学探测任务仿真概念模型研究
|
摘要
近二十年来,人们对系统工程的研究重心呈现出一种与开发过程截然相反的发展趋势。这在软件工程领域尤为明显,即从早期关注测试阶段开始,渐渐的转向了代码的生成,随后重心又偏向了程序的管理和设计方法,而到了近十年,大量的研究又集中在了开发早期的概要设计和需求分析阶段。这样一种从后向前的逆向研究趋势是因为人们在实践中发现:1)描述具体而实在的问题很容易,而表达更抽象的问题却很难。“我们对一个方案的编码丝毫不感到有困难,真正的麻烦在于去如何描述问题。”2)确定“要做什么”比“怎么做”重要,许多的实际开发经验证明,开发后期发现的系统中的重大错误往往来自于不正确的需求分析或对问题的不准确理解。因此,它体现出这样一个结论:即决定系统开发成败的重要因素往往是开发早期阶段的分析与设计。这对软件工程是如此,对系统工程是如此,对于系统工程的一种、与软件工程有紧密联系的仿真建模工程也是如此。而在仿真建模工程中,承担早期分析与设计这一角色的就是仿真概念模型SCM(Simulation Conceptual Model)。
简单的说仿真概念模型是为了满足仿真应用目标而对真实世界进行的首次抽象,它为领域专家、开发人员和验证人员提供了与真实世界一致的、规范的描述,为后期的设计提供支持与指导。对它的建模方法和开发过程的研究也自然成为当今仿真建模领域的热点。将仿真概念模型引入到具体的仿真工程中,起到准确描述问题、把握需求、引导设计开发、便于验证的重要作用,是所有SCM仿真学者的目的,也是本文研究的最终目标。尤其是对于本论文关注的问题域—空间探测任务的仿真来说,要实现仿真概念模型应用,就必须有一套针对空间探测任务特点的、科学简明的建模方法和开发过程。然而,国际上关于仿真概念模型的研究现状是至今还没有统一的、被大家所公认的定义和方法,大家在理论和较抽象层面上还存在分歧,更不用说具体的模型描述方法和开发步骤了。因此论文在总结前人的观点和工作的基础之上,率先提出了针对空间探测任务的详细的仿真概念模型模板SESCML以及其开发过程SECDP,具体的:
首先总结了仿真概念模型的一般含义和作用,为后续的研究确定了理论基础。随后分析了空间探测任务的任务类型、运行环境、仿真需求等特征,归纳了国际上几种典型的关于仿真概念模型内容的观点,详细研究了仿真概念模型在仿真系统开发中的位置。并在空间探测任务特征和SCM开发位置的指导下,以总结的内容为基础,确定了针对空间探测任务的仿真概念模型(SESCM)的内容结构。
在SESCM内容结构的基础上,论文进一步研究了SESCM的建模方法,通过分析被广泛使用的结构化方法和面向对象方法的特点,确定了以面向对象为基础、结构化方法为过程的仿真概念模型的建模思想。以此为指导,结合仿真建模的一般原则,提出并建立了针对SESCM的建模语言与模板SESCML。SESCML包括系统层、模型层、设计层三个层次,实体模型、功能模型、过程模型、环境模型四类模型,仿真目标列表、仿真背景描述、实体结构图、任务流程图等15种图表模板。文中对各个层次、模型、图表目标的含义、作用、表达方式和相互关系做了详细的研究与论述。
为了支持基于SESCML模板的仿真概念模型的开发,论文提出了SESCM的开发过程模型SECDP。SECDP建立在一般建模理论的基础上,贯穿了从知识获取到知识建模的整个生命周期,系统、全面地总结和归纳了SESCM开发过程中的关键活动,并把这些活动划分为五个步骤。重点针对其中的模型验证,研究了它的基本含义与原则,并且提出了SESCM验证的初步的评估的手段和一般的验证步骤。
最后,以中俄火星探测任务为研究对象,以SECDP为指导,SESCML模板为标准,依次进行了仿真目标分析、问题域特征分析、建立模型、建立联邦关系等开发活动,最终比较系统和规范的建立了火星探测任务的SESCM。
Within the last two decades, the emphasis in systems engineering research appears to follow a reverse of the development path. This trendency is especially typical in software engineering. Software systems research had an early focus on the testing phase, and then a transition is seen to code generation, followed by program organization and design methodology, and for the past ten or more years the sights have centered on the requirements analysis phase and conceptual design phase. Explanations of the reverse path of research emphasis are from practical project experience: 1) Making concrete representations of a solution possibly is simpler than abstract representations of a problem. "We are not really having a problem coding a solution—we are having a problem understanding what solution to code." (Cook, D.1999). 2) Determining "what to do" is more important than "how to do". So much experience from practical project reveals that the high cost or fatal mistakes are often incurred by incorrect requirements analyzing and incomplete understanding of the problem. Therefore, all of these facts come to a conclusion, which is that the critical factor of determining whether or not the simulation can support its intended uses is problem-domain analysis and concept design in the early stages of a project development. That is obviously true for software engineering, system engineering, and simulation engineering which is a kind of system engineering and has the codependency relationship with software engineering. In modeling&simulation, that plays a role which progresses problem-domain analysis and concept design in the early stages is Simulation Conceptual Model (SCM).
In short, SCM is the first step on the road to abstract this real world for fulfilling the simulation application object, it provides SME, developer and VV&A agent the normal description according to the real world, which supports and guides the following design. Correspondingly, the research about its modeling method and exploring process becomes the hotspot of today's modeling&simulation area. Inducting SCM into the concrete simulation project plays significant roles on describing problems accurately, making requirement clearly, directing design development and examining conveniently. What mentioned above is pursued by all the SCM researchers, and also seemed as the final purpose of this paper. Especially for the problem-domain—simulation about space explore target, in order to realize the SCM application, it is necessary to build a deeply concrete scientific simple modeling method and developing process which focus on special characteristic of space exploration mission. However, the international situation about SCM is that uniform definition and method have not been formed because of the differences from theory and disparity on high-level, to say nothing of the concrete modeling description method and exploring process. Therefore, based on the conclusion of predecessors' opinion and works, we first propose the detailed SCM template of space exploration mission—SESCML, and its developing process—SECDP.
First of all, general signification and roles of SCM was summarized, which established theory basis for continuing studying. Characteristics of space exploration mission, such as mission classification, runtime infrastructure, and simulation requirements and so on, were analyzed. Several typical views on content of SCM were summed up. The position of SCM in the process of simulation system development was investigated in details. In the guideline of characteristics of space exploration mission and the developing position of SCM, and based on the summarized contents, the framework of simulation conceptual model aimed at space exploration mission was confirmed.
Based on the framework of SESCM, the modeling method of SESCM was researched in further. By analyzing features of structural and object oriented methods, a modeling ideology of simulation conceptual model was founded, for which object oriented method lays foundation, which use structural method as modeling process. In this direction, combining general principle of simulation modeling, the SESCML, modeling language and model template, which aimed at SESCM was brought forward and established. SESCML consists of three levels—system level, model level, and design level, four models—entity model, function model, process model and environment model, and 15 kinds of diagram templates, such as Simulation Objective Lists, Simulation Context, Entity Structure Diagram, Task Flow Diagramand so on. Significations, roles, representions and interrelationships of all kinds of levels, models and diagrams were expounded in this article.
In order to support the development of SCM that based on the SESCML template, this paper proposes SECDP-- the developing process model about SESCM. SECDP is built on the foundation of general modeling theory and it exists during the entire lifecycle from knowledge acquiring to knowledge modeling. Also, it concludes the fatal activity systematically and comprehensively, which are consisted of five steps during the exploring process of SESCM. Focusing on the model validation, this paper studies VV&A basic meanings and principle; meanwhile, we propose the primary assessment method and general conceptual validation process.
At last, based on the research of Mars exploring, guided by the SECDP, and planed by SESCML template as the criteria, we finished lots of exploring activities such as simulation object analyzing, characteristic analyzing, modeling, and establishing federate relationship and so forth. Thanks to these activities, we finally build the SESCM of Mars exploring target systematically.
简单的说仿真概念模型是为了满足仿真应用目标而对真实世界进行的首次抽象,它为领域专家、开发人员和验证人员提供了与真实世界一致的、规范的描述,为后期的设计提供支持与指导。对它的建模方法和开发过程的研究也自然成为当今仿真建模领域的热点。将仿真概念模型引入到具体的仿真工程中,起到准确描述问题、把握需求、引导设计开发、便于验证的重要作用,是所有SCM仿真学者的目的,也是本文研究的最终目标。尤其是对于本论文关注的问题域—空间探测任务的仿真来说,要实现仿真概念模型应用,就必须有一套针对空间探测任务特点的、科学简明的建模方法和开发过程。然而,国际上关于仿真概念模型的研究现状是至今还没有统一的、被大家所公认的定义和方法,大家在理论和较抽象层面上还存在分歧,更不用说具体的模型描述方法和开发步骤了。因此论文在总结前人的观点和工作的基础之上,率先提出了针对空间探测任务的详细的仿真概念模型模板SESCML以及其开发过程SECDP,具体的:
首先总结了仿真概念模型的一般含义和作用,为后续的研究确定了理论基础。随后分析了空间探测任务的任务类型、运行环境、仿真需求等特征,归纳了国际上几种典型的关于仿真概念模型内容的观点,详细研究了仿真概念模型在仿真系统开发中的位置。并在空间探测任务特征和SCM开发位置的指导下,以总结的内容为基础,确定了针对空间探测任务的仿真概念模型(SESCM)的内容结构。
在SESCM内容结构的基础上,论文进一步研究了SESCM的建模方法,通过分析被广泛使用的结构化方法和面向对象方法的特点,确定了以面向对象为基础、结构化方法为过程的仿真概念模型的建模思想。以此为指导,结合仿真建模的一般原则,提出并建立了针对SESCM的建模语言与模板SESCML。SESCML包括系统层、模型层、设计层三个层次,实体模型、功能模型、过程模型、环境模型四类模型,仿真目标列表、仿真背景描述、实体结构图、任务流程图等15种图表模板。文中对各个层次、模型、图表目标的含义、作用、表达方式和相互关系做了详细的研究与论述。
为了支持基于SESCML模板的仿真概念模型的开发,论文提出了SESCM的开发过程模型SECDP。SECDP建立在一般建模理论的基础上,贯穿了从知识获取到知识建模的整个生命周期,系统、全面地总结和归纳了SESCM开发过程中的关键活动,并把这些活动划分为五个步骤。重点针对其中的模型验证,研究了它的基本含义与原则,并且提出了SESCM验证的初步的评估的手段和一般的验证步骤。
最后,以中俄火星探测任务为研究对象,以SECDP为指导,SESCML模板为标准,依次进行了仿真目标分析、问题域特征分析、建立模型、建立联邦关系等开发活动,最终比较系统和规范的建立了火星探测任务的SESCM。
Within the last two decades, the emphasis in systems engineering research appears to follow a reverse of the development path. This trendency is especially typical in software engineering. Software systems research had an early focus on the testing phase, and then a transition is seen to code generation, followed by program organization and design methodology, and for the past ten or more years the sights have centered on the requirements analysis phase and conceptual design phase. Explanations of the reverse path of research emphasis are from practical project experience: 1) Making concrete representations of a solution possibly is simpler than abstract representations of a problem. "We are not really having a problem coding a solution—we are having a problem understanding what solution to code." (Cook, D.1999). 2) Determining "what to do" is more important than "how to do". So much experience from practical project reveals that the high cost or fatal mistakes are often incurred by incorrect requirements analyzing and incomplete understanding of the problem. Therefore, all of these facts come to a conclusion, which is that the critical factor of determining whether or not the simulation can support its intended uses is problem-domain analysis and concept design in the early stages of a project development. That is obviously true for software engineering, system engineering, and simulation engineering which is a kind of system engineering and has the codependency relationship with software engineering. In modeling&simulation, that plays a role which progresses problem-domain analysis and concept design in the early stages is Simulation Conceptual Model (SCM).
In short, SCM is the first step on the road to abstract this real world for fulfilling the simulation application object, it provides SME, developer and VV&A agent the normal description according to the real world, which supports and guides the following design. Correspondingly, the research about its modeling method and exploring process becomes the hotspot of today's modeling&simulation area. Inducting SCM into the concrete simulation project plays significant roles on describing problems accurately, making requirement clearly, directing design development and examining conveniently. What mentioned above is pursued by all the SCM researchers, and also seemed as the final purpose of this paper. Especially for the problem-domain—simulation about space explore target, in order to realize the SCM application, it is necessary to build a deeply concrete scientific simple modeling method and developing process which focus on special characteristic of space exploration mission. However, the international situation about SCM is that uniform definition and method have not been formed because of the differences from theory and disparity on high-level, to say nothing of the concrete modeling description method and exploring process. Therefore, based on the conclusion of predecessors' opinion and works, we first propose the detailed SCM template of space exploration mission—SESCML, and its developing process—SECDP.
First of all, general signification and roles of SCM was summarized, which established theory basis for continuing studying. Characteristics of space exploration mission, such as mission classification, runtime infrastructure, and simulation requirements and so on, were analyzed. Several typical views on content of SCM were summed up. The position of SCM in the process of simulation system development was investigated in details. In the guideline of characteristics of space exploration mission and the developing position of SCM, and based on the summarized contents, the framework of simulation conceptual model aimed at space exploration mission was confirmed.
Based on the framework of SESCM, the modeling method of SESCM was researched in further. By analyzing features of structural and object oriented methods, a modeling ideology of simulation conceptual model was founded, for which object oriented method lays foundation, which use structural method as modeling process. In this direction, combining general principle of simulation modeling, the SESCML, modeling language and model template, which aimed at SESCM was brought forward and established. SESCML consists of three levels—system level, model level, and design level, four models—entity model, function model, process model and environment model, and 15 kinds of diagram templates, such as Simulation Objective Lists, Simulation Context, Entity Structure Diagram, Task Flow Diagramand so on. Significations, roles, representions and interrelationships of all kinds of levels, models and diagrams were expounded in this article.
In order to support the development of SCM that based on the SESCML template, this paper proposes SECDP-- the developing process model about SESCM. SECDP is built on the foundation of general modeling theory and it exists during the entire lifecycle from knowledge acquiring to knowledge modeling. Also, it concludes the fatal activity systematically and comprehensively, which are consisted of five steps during the exploring process of SESCM. Focusing on the model validation, this paper studies VV&A basic meanings and principle; meanwhile, we propose the primary assessment method and general conceptual validation process.
At last, based on the research of Mars exploring, guided by the SECDP, and planed by SESCML template as the criteria, we finished lots of exploring activities such as simulation object analyzing, characteristic analyzing, modeling, and establishing federate relationship and so forth. Thanks to these activities, we finally build the SESCM of Mars exploring target systematically.
引文
[1]王子才.复杂系统仿真概念模型研究进展及方向.宇航学报.Vol.28 No.4
[2]王勇.仿真概念模型的开发过程研究.系统仿真学报.Vol.18 Suppl.2
[3]黄健,黄柯棣,邱晓刚.任务空间概念模型研究.系统仿真学报.Vol 12 No.1
[4]黄柯棣,张金槐等.系统仿真技术.长沙国防科学技术大学出版社.1998
[5]张琦,王达,黄柯棣.使命空间模型研究初步.系统仿真学报.第11期,2004.
[6]张琦.使命空间功能描述理论和方法研究[博士学位论文].国防科学技术大学研究生院.长沙2005.
[7]刘振兴.21世纪的空间探测展望.知识就是力量.2000年第一期
[8]陈闽慷.从国际空间探测到我国发展策略.No.2 2006
[9]叶宗海.中国的空间环境研究.地球物理学报.Vol.40 Suppl.1
[10]孙来燕.我国空间探测发展的原则.航天器工程.Vol.16 No.6
[11]朱光武,李保权.空间环境对航天器的影响及其对策研究.上海航天.2002年第四期.
[12]Cook,D.,"Evolution of Programming Languages and Why a Language Is Not Enough To Solve Our Problems," CrossTalk:J.Def.Software Eng.12(12),7-12(Dec 1999).
[13]SISO.Reference FOM Study Group Final Report,Version 1.0.March 1998.
[14]SISO.Reference Simulation Conceptual Modeling(SCM) Study Group Final Report.Paper SISO-REF-017-2006.
[15]Stewart R.Conceptual Modeling for Simulation:Issues and Research Requirements.Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.
[16]Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,10th ed.,Merriam-Webster,Inc.,Springfield,Massachusetts,1994
[17]Zeigler,B.P.Theory of Modeling and Simulation.Wiley,New York.1976.
[18]Balci,O.Validation,Verification,and Testing Techniques throughout the Life Cycle of a Simulation Study.Annals of Operations Research,53,121-173.1994.
[19]Balci,O.A Methodology for Certification of Modeling and Simulation Applications.ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation,11(4),352-37.2001.
[20]Brooks,R.J.Choosing the Best Model:Level of Detail,Complexity and Model Performance.Mathematical and Computer Modeling,24(4),1-14,1996a.
[21]Chwif.On Simulation Model Complexity.Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference (J.A.Joines,R.R.Barton,K.Kang and P.A.Fishwick,eds.).IEEE,Piscataway,NJ,449-455.2000.
[22]Courtois,P.J.On Time and Space Decomposition of Complex Structures.Communications of the ACM,28(6),590-603.1985.
[23]Ferguson,Results of Applying the Personal Software Process.Computer,5,24-31.1997.[24]Fishwick,P.A.Simulation Model Design and Execution:Building Digital Worlds.Prentice-Hall,UpperSaddle River,NJ.1995.
[25]Law,A.M.and W.D.Kelton.Simulation Modeling and Analysis,3rd ed.McGraw-Hill,New York.2000.
[26]Nance,R.E.The Conical Methodology and the Evolution of Simulation Model Development.Annals of Operations Research, 53,1-45.1994.
[27] Nance, R.E. and Arthur, J.D. Software Requirements Engineering: Exploring the Role in Simulation Model Development. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 117-127. 2006.
[28] Pidd, M. Just Modeling Through: A Rough Guide to Modeling. Interfaces, 29 (2), 118-132.1999.
[29] Pooley, R.J. Towards a Standard for Hierarchical Process Oriented Discrete Event Diagrams.Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, 8 (1), 1-41. 1991.
[30] Powell, S.G 1995. Six Key Modeling Heuristics. Interfaces,25 (4), 114-125.
[31] Pritsker. Principles of Simulation Modeling. Handbook of Simulation. Wiley, New York, 31-51. 1998.
[32] Robinson, S. 1994. Simulation Projects: Building the Right Conceptual Model. Industrial Engineering,26 (9), 34-36.
[33] Robinson, S. 2002. Modes of Simulation Practice: Approaches to Business and Military Simulation.Simulation Practice and Theory, 10, 513-523.
[34] Robinson, S. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Wiley, Chichester, UK. 2004.
[35] Robinson, S. Distributed Simulation and SimulationPractice. Simulation: Transactions of the Society forModeling and Computer Simulation, 81 (1), 5-13. 2005.
[36] Robinson, S. and M. Pidd. 1998. Provider and Customer Expectations of Successful Simulation Projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49 (3), 200-209.
[37] Rosenhead, J. and J. Mingers. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd ed. Wiley,Chichester, UK. 2001.
[38] Ryan, J. and Heavey, C. Requirements Gathering for Simulation. Proceedings of the Third Operational ResearchSociety Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society,Birmingham, UK, 175-184. 2006.
[39] Sargent, R.G Validation and Verification of Simulation Models. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference (R.G Ingalls, M.D. Rossetti, J.S. Smith and B.A. Peters, eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 17-28. 2004.
[40] Schruben, L. and E. Yucesan. Complexity of Simulation Models: A Graph Theoretic Approach.Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation Conference (GW. Evans, M. Mollaghasemi, E.C.Russell and W.E. Biles, eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 641-649.1993.
[41] Sevinc, S. Automation of Simplification in Discrete Event Modeling and Simulation. International Journal of General Systems, 18,125-142.1990.
[42] Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.Irwin/McGraw- Hill, New York. 2000.
[43] Teeuw, W.B. and H. van den Berg. On the Quality of Conceptual Models. Proceedings of the ER'97 Workshop on Behavioral Models and Design Transformations: Issues and Opportunities in Conceptual Modeling. 1997.
[44] Wang, W. and Brooks, R.J. 2006. Improving the Understanding of Conceptual Modelling.Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 227-234.
[45] Zeigler. B. P. A Theory-based Conceptual Terminology for M&S VV&A. Proceedings of the Spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19, 1999, Orlando, FL, pp.133-144.
[46] Cuneyd Firat. A Knowledge Based Look at Federation Conceptual Model Development. Proceedings of the 2001 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, June 25-27, 2001, Harrow, England,CD.
[47] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Descriptions. Proceedings of the spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19, 1999, Orlando, FL, pp.133-144.
[48] Dale K. Pace. Development and Documentation of a Simulation Conceptual Model. Proceedings of the fall 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19 1999, Orlando, FL, CD.
[49] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Development. Paper 00S-SIW-033, Proceedings of the spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 26-31,2000, Orlando.
[50] Dale K. Pace. Ideas About Simulation Conceptual Model Development. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 21, Number 3, July-September 2000, pp.327-336.
[51] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Issues: Development Methods (Part 1), Interaction with Simulation Requirements (Part 2), and Simulation Development Costs and V&V Costs (Part 3).Proceedings of the 2000 Sumer Computer Simulation Conference, William F. Waite (ed.), July 16-20, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, pp. 488-499.
[52] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Development Issues and Implications for Reuse of Simulation Components. Paper 00F-SIW-019, Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22,2000, Orlando.
[53] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Development for C4ISR Simulations. Proceedings of the 5th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, October 24-26, 2000,Australia War Memorial, Canberra, Australia, CD.
[54] Dale K. Pace. Implications of Simulation Conceptual Model Development for Simulation Management and Uncertainity Assessment. Proceedings of the 1st Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANAF) Modeling and Simulaton Subcommittee Meeting, November 13-17, 2000,Monterey, CA, CPIA Publication 702, published by the Chemical Propulsion Information Agency (CPIA), Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering, Columbia, MD, November 2000, pp. 1-13.
[55] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Role in Determing Compatibility of Candidate Simulations for a HLA Federation. Proceedings of the Spring 2001 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 26-30,2001, Orlando, FL, CD.
[56] Dale K. Pace.Impact of Federate Conceptual Model Quality and Documentation on Assessing HLA Federation Validity. Proceedings of the 2001 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, June 25-27, 2001, Harrow, England, CD.
[57] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Role in Simulation Validation. Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Congress on Computational Mechanics, August 1-3,2001, Dearborn, MI.
[58] Dale K. Pace. Capability of Explicit Conceptual Model on M&S Credibility and Reuse. SURVIAC Workshop on Planning for Employment of Credible M&S in Defense Acquistion Survivability,Lethality, and System Effectiveness, March 4-7, 2002, Reno, NV.
[59] Dale K. Pace. Thoughts About The Simulation Conceptual Model. Proceedings of the Spring 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, CD.
[60] F. Haddix. Conceptual Modeling Revisited:A Development Model Approach for Modeling&Simulation. Paper 01F-SIW-098,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2001.
[61] L. Lacy, S. Youngblood, and R. Might:"Developing a Consensus Perspective onConceptual Models for Simulation Systems,"Paper 01S-SIW-074, Proceedings of theSimuIation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2001
[62] Davis, P. K. Generalizing Concepts and Methods of Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) for Military Simulations. Paper R-4249-ACQ, RAND, Santa Monica, CA. 1992.
[63] DMSO. Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Technical Framework.USD/A&T-DMSO-CMMS-0002, revision 0.2.1, February 13,1997.
[64] DMSO (1998) DoD Modeling and Simulation Glossary, DoD 5000.59-M, January 1998,http://www.dmso.mil/briefs/msdocs/policy/glossarv.pdf.
[65] F. Haddix. Mission Space, Federation, and Other Conceptual Models. Paper 98S-SIW-162,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[66] F. Haddix. Conceptual Modeling. Presentation at Summer Computer Simulation Conference, July 2000.
[67] Johnson, Thomas H., Mission Space Model Development, Reuse and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset. 98 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop Papers, March 1998,Volume 2, pp. 893-900.
[68] Lewis, R. O., Coe, G. Q., A Comparison Between the CMMS and the Conceptual Model of the Federation. Paper 97F-SIW-162, Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1997.
[69] Porter, K. (2000) JCMMS: Domain Knowledge for Developing Military Models. Paper 00F-SIW-122,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[70] Risner, S. Conceptual Modeling in the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS), Proceedings of the 1998 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[71] Grady Booch. Object Solutions: Managing the Object-Oriented Project. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park,California, 1996.
[72] Richard L. Ressler. M&S/C4ISR Conceptual Reference Model. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22, 2000, Orlando.
[73] Robert M. Chapman. Mission-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Framework for Distributed Mission Training. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22,2000, Orlando.
[74] Wayne Lindo. OneSAF Conceptual Model. Word document, 30 December 2001.
[75] Tom Johnson. Mission Space Model Development, Reuse, and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset. Paper 98S-SIW-155. Simulation Interoperability Workshop Papers, March 9-13 1998.
[76] Paul Gustavson. Conceptual to Composable: Driving Towards Rapid Development of Simulations and Simulation Spaces. Proceedings of the 2003 Intraservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, 1-4 Dec 2003, Orlando.
[77] Jack Borah. Conceptual Modeling- The Missing Link of Simulation Development. Paper 02S-SIW-074. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2002.
[78] Jack Borah. Conceptual Modeling-How Do We Move Forward?-The Next Step. Paper 02F-SIW-054.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2002.
[79] Dr. Andreas Tolk, James A. Muguira. The Level of Conceptual Interoperability Model. Paper 03F-SIW-007. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2003.
[80] Robert O. Lewis. A Comparison between the CMMS and the Conceptual Model of the Federation.Paper 97F-SIW-001. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1997.
[81] Dr. Andreas Tolk. Composable Mission Spaces and M&S Repositories Applicability of open Standards. Paper 04S-SIW-009. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2004.
[82] US. Department of Defense, Modeling and Simulation Master Plan, October 1995, http://www.dmso.mil
[83] DMSO. Department of Defense Verification, Validation and Accreditation (W&A) Recommended Practices Guide 1996.
[84] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) - Frame and Rules. IEEE Std1 516-2000, September 2000.
[85] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) -Federate Interface Specification. I EEE Std 1516.1-2000, September 2000.
[86] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA)- Object Model Template(OMT) Specification. IEEE Std 1516.2-2000, September 2000.
[87] IEEE.IEEE Draft Recommended Practice for High Level Architecture (H LA)- Federation Development and Execution Process(FEDEP).IEEE P1516.3~(?), April 2003.
[88] Department of Defense (1999). Department of Defense Handbook. Instructional Systems Development/System Approach to Training and Education. (MIL-HDBK-29612-2) Lakehurst, NJ:Naval Warfare Center Aircraft Division.
[89] Thomas H. Johnson, Mission Space Model Development, Reuse and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset, Paper 98S-SIW-155. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[90] Jack Sheehan, LTC Terry Prosser, Maj. Harry Conley, Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS): Basic Concepts, Advanced Techniques, and Pragmatic Examples, Paper 98S-SIW-127.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[91] Cuneyd Firat. Conceptual Modeling and Conceptual Analysis in HLA. Paper 00F-SIW-151.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[92] Steve Risner, Ken Porter. Conceptual Modeling in the Joint Simulation System(JSIMS).Paper 98F-SIW-147. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1998.
[93] Victor J. Jimenez, Sterling A. Hall, Matthew G Weber. The JSIMS Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository: An Application of HALO. Paper 98S-SIW-205. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[94] Dr. Tony Valle, Robert Knox. The JSIMS Abstract Model. Paper 99S-SIW-070. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1999.
[95] Ken Porter. JCMMS: Domain Knowledge for Developing Military Models. Paper 00F-SIW-122.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[96] Fran Dougherty, Frederick Weaver, Jr., and Mike Cluff, JWARS contribution to the DoD Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS). Paper 98S-SIW-137.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[97] Daniel P Sagan, Daniel E. Kersey. Conceptual Modeling Lessons Learned from WARSIM2000. Paper 00S-SIW-052. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2000.
[98] Steering Group on NATO Simulation Policy and Application. NATO Modeling and Simulation Master Plan (Version1.0).Augustl 998.
[99] OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5. Available at http://www.omg.org,March 2003.
[100] Stan Grigsby. Assessing Uncertainties in the Probability of Raid Annihilation. Paper 01F-SIW-07.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2001.
[101] Donna W. Blake. The Navy's Probability of Raid Annihilation Assessment ProcessStandards &Architecture and Systems Engineering Concept Model. Paper 03F-SIW-057. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2003
[102] Andrew J. Duck. Army Future Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) System-of-System (SoS) Conceptual Modeling. Paper 04F-SIW-2004. Proceedings of the Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 19-24,2004, Orlando.
[103] Wang Xue-hui. Improving Simulation Conceptual Model. Paper 04F-SIW-036. Proceedings of the Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 19-24, 2004, Orlando.
[104] James Weiner. Conceptual Modeling of a Legacy Constructive Simulation: A Use Case. Paper 03F-SIW-064. Proceedings of the Fall 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 14-19, 2003.
[105] Marten Lundgren. CMMS under the Magnifying Glass -An Approach to Deal with Substantive Interoperability. Paper 04F-SIW-010. Proceedings of the fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2004.
[106] Michael L. Metz. Comparing the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) Conceptual Model to a Conceptual Model Standard. Paper 00F-SIW-129. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Fall 2000.
[107] James Globe. Using SysML to Create a Simulation Conceptual Model of a Basic ISR Survivability Test Thread. Paper 07S-SIW-045. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[108] N. Alpay KARAGOZ. Developing Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS) - A Metamodel Based Approach. Paper 07S-SIW-056. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[109] Richard Reading. Conceptual Modeling for the Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) Testbed.Paper 07S-SIW-074. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[110] Edwin Z. Crues. An Overview of the Distributed Space Exploration Simulation (DSES) Project.Paper 07S-SIW-078. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[111] DoD Architecture Framework Working Group: "DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.0, Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines," 9 February 2004.
[112] DoD Architecture Framework Working Group: "DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.0, Volume II: Product Descriptions," 9 February 2004.
[113] P.A. Fishwick: Simulation Model Design and Execution: Building Digital Worlds, Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ 1995.
[114] United States Marine Corps. Department of the Navy, Joint Mission Essential Task List (JMETL) Development Handbook, September 2002.
[115] CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MANUAL: UNIVERSAL JOINT TASK LIST.1 July 2002
[2]王勇.仿真概念模型的开发过程研究.系统仿真学报.Vol.18 Suppl.2
[3]黄健,黄柯棣,邱晓刚.任务空间概念模型研究.系统仿真学报.Vol 12 No.1
[4]黄柯棣,张金槐等.系统仿真技术.长沙国防科学技术大学出版社.1998
[5]张琦,王达,黄柯棣.使命空间模型研究初步.系统仿真学报.第11期,2004.
[6]张琦.使命空间功能描述理论和方法研究[博士学位论文].国防科学技术大学研究生院.长沙2005.
[7]刘振兴.21世纪的空间探测展望.知识就是力量.2000年第一期
[8]陈闽慷.从国际空间探测到我国发展策略.No.2 2006
[9]叶宗海.中国的空间环境研究.地球物理学报.Vol.40 Suppl.1
[10]孙来燕.我国空间探测发展的原则.航天器工程.Vol.16 No.6
[11]朱光武,李保权.空间环境对航天器的影响及其对策研究.上海航天.2002年第四期.
[12]Cook,D.,"Evolution of Programming Languages and Why a Language Is Not Enough To Solve Our Problems," CrossTalk:J.Def.Software Eng.12(12),7-12(Dec 1999).
[13]SISO.Reference FOM Study Group Final Report,Version 1.0.March 1998.
[14]SISO.Reference Simulation Conceptual Modeling(SCM) Study Group Final Report.Paper SISO-REF-017-2006.
[15]Stewart R.Conceptual Modeling for Simulation:Issues and Research Requirements.Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.
[16]Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,10th ed.,Merriam-Webster,Inc.,Springfield,Massachusetts,1994
[17]Zeigler,B.P.Theory of Modeling and Simulation.Wiley,New York.1976.
[18]Balci,O.Validation,Verification,and Testing Techniques throughout the Life Cycle of a Simulation Study.Annals of Operations Research,53,121-173.1994.
[19]Balci,O.A Methodology for Certification of Modeling and Simulation Applications.ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation,11(4),352-37.2001.
[20]Brooks,R.J.Choosing the Best Model:Level of Detail,Complexity and Model Performance.Mathematical and Computer Modeling,24(4),1-14,1996a.
[21]Chwif.On Simulation Model Complexity.Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference (J.A.Joines,R.R.Barton,K.Kang and P.A.Fishwick,eds.).IEEE,Piscataway,NJ,449-455.2000.
[22]Courtois,P.J.On Time and Space Decomposition of Complex Structures.Communications of the ACM,28(6),590-603.1985.
[23]Ferguson,Results of Applying the Personal Software Process.Computer,5,24-31.1997.[24]Fishwick,P.A.Simulation Model Design and Execution:Building Digital Worlds.Prentice-Hall,UpperSaddle River,NJ.1995.
[25]Law,A.M.and W.D.Kelton.Simulation Modeling and Analysis,3rd ed.McGraw-Hill,New York.2000.
[26]Nance,R.E.The Conical Methodology and the Evolution of Simulation Model Development.Annals of Operations Research, 53,1-45.1994.
[27] Nance, R.E. and Arthur, J.D. Software Requirements Engineering: Exploring the Role in Simulation Model Development. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 117-127. 2006.
[28] Pidd, M. Just Modeling Through: A Rough Guide to Modeling. Interfaces, 29 (2), 118-132.1999.
[29] Pooley, R.J. Towards a Standard for Hierarchical Process Oriented Discrete Event Diagrams.Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, 8 (1), 1-41. 1991.
[30] Powell, S.G 1995. Six Key Modeling Heuristics. Interfaces,25 (4), 114-125.
[31] Pritsker. Principles of Simulation Modeling. Handbook of Simulation. Wiley, New York, 31-51. 1998.
[32] Robinson, S. 1994. Simulation Projects: Building the Right Conceptual Model. Industrial Engineering,26 (9), 34-36.
[33] Robinson, S. 2002. Modes of Simulation Practice: Approaches to Business and Military Simulation.Simulation Practice and Theory, 10, 513-523.
[34] Robinson, S. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Wiley, Chichester, UK. 2004.
[35] Robinson, S. Distributed Simulation and SimulationPractice. Simulation: Transactions of the Society forModeling and Computer Simulation, 81 (1), 5-13. 2005.
[36] Robinson, S. and M. Pidd. 1998. Provider and Customer Expectations of Successful Simulation Projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49 (3), 200-209.
[37] Rosenhead, J. and J. Mingers. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd ed. Wiley,Chichester, UK. 2001.
[38] Ryan, J. and Heavey, C. Requirements Gathering for Simulation. Proceedings of the Third Operational ResearchSociety Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society,Birmingham, UK, 175-184. 2006.
[39] Sargent, R.G Validation and Verification of Simulation Models. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference (R.G Ingalls, M.D. Rossetti, J.S. Smith and B.A. Peters, eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 17-28. 2004.
[40] Schruben, L. and E. Yucesan. Complexity of Simulation Models: A Graph Theoretic Approach.Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation Conference (GW. Evans, M. Mollaghasemi, E.C.Russell and W.E. Biles, eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 641-649.1993.
[41] Sevinc, S. Automation of Simplification in Discrete Event Modeling and Simulation. International Journal of General Systems, 18,125-142.1990.
[42] Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.Irwin/McGraw- Hill, New York. 2000.
[43] Teeuw, W.B. and H. van den Berg. On the Quality of Conceptual Models. Proceedings of the ER'97 Workshop on Behavioral Models and Design Transformations: Issues and Opportunities in Conceptual Modeling. 1997.
[44] Wang, W. and Brooks, R.J. 2006. Improving the Understanding of Conceptual Modelling.Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 227-234.
[45] Zeigler. B. P. A Theory-based Conceptual Terminology for M&S VV&A. Proceedings of the Spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19, 1999, Orlando, FL, pp.133-144.
[46] Cuneyd Firat. A Knowledge Based Look at Federation Conceptual Model Development. Proceedings of the 2001 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, June 25-27, 2001, Harrow, England,CD.
[47] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Descriptions. Proceedings of the spring 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19, 1999, Orlando, FL, pp.133-144.
[48] Dale K. Pace. Development and Documentation of a Simulation Conceptual Model. Proceedings of the fall 1999 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 15-19 1999, Orlando, FL, CD.
[49] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Development. Paper 00S-SIW-033, Proceedings of the spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 26-31,2000, Orlando.
[50] Dale K. Pace. Ideas About Simulation Conceptual Model Development. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 21, Number 3, July-September 2000, pp.327-336.
[51] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Issues: Development Methods (Part 1), Interaction with Simulation Requirements (Part 2), and Simulation Development Costs and V&V Costs (Part 3).Proceedings of the 2000 Sumer Computer Simulation Conference, William F. Waite (ed.), July 16-20, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, pp. 488-499.
[52] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Development Issues and Implications for Reuse of Simulation Components. Paper 00F-SIW-019, Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22,2000, Orlando.
[53] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Development for C4ISR Simulations. Proceedings of the 5th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, October 24-26, 2000,Australia War Memorial, Canberra, Australia, CD.
[54] Dale K. Pace. Implications of Simulation Conceptual Model Development for Simulation Management and Uncertainity Assessment. Proceedings of the 1st Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANAF) Modeling and Simulaton Subcommittee Meeting, November 13-17, 2000,Monterey, CA, CPIA Publication 702, published by the Chemical Propulsion Information Agency (CPIA), Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering, Columbia, MD, November 2000, pp. 1-13.
[55] Dale K. Pace. Simulation Conceptual Model Role in Determing Compatibility of Candidate Simulations for a HLA Federation. Proceedings of the Spring 2001 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 26-30,2001, Orlando, FL, CD.
[56] Dale K. Pace.Impact of Federate Conceptual Model Quality and Documentation on Assessing HLA Federation Validity. Proceedings of the 2001 European Simulation Interoperability Workshop, June 25-27, 2001, Harrow, England, CD.
[57] Dale K. Pace. Conceptual Model Role in Simulation Validation. Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Congress on Computational Mechanics, August 1-3,2001, Dearborn, MI.
[58] Dale K. Pace. Capability of Explicit Conceptual Model on M&S Credibility and Reuse. SURVIAC Workshop on Planning for Employment of Credible M&S in Defense Acquistion Survivability,Lethality, and System Effectiveness, March 4-7, 2002, Reno, NV.
[59] Dale K. Pace. Thoughts About The Simulation Conceptual Model. Proceedings of the Spring 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, CD.
[60] F. Haddix. Conceptual Modeling Revisited:A Development Model Approach for Modeling&Simulation. Paper 01F-SIW-098,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2001.
[61] L. Lacy, S. Youngblood, and R. Might:"Developing a Consensus Perspective onConceptual Models for Simulation Systems,"Paper 01S-SIW-074, Proceedings of theSimuIation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2001
[62] Davis, P. K. Generalizing Concepts and Methods of Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) for Military Simulations. Paper R-4249-ACQ, RAND, Santa Monica, CA. 1992.
[63] DMSO. Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Technical Framework.USD/A&T-DMSO-CMMS-0002, revision 0.2.1, February 13,1997.
[64] DMSO (1998) DoD Modeling and Simulation Glossary, DoD 5000.59-M, January 1998,http://www.dmso.mil/briefs/msdocs/policy/glossarv.pdf.
[65] F. Haddix. Mission Space, Federation, and Other Conceptual Models. Paper 98S-SIW-162,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[66] F. Haddix. Conceptual Modeling. Presentation at Summer Computer Simulation Conference, July 2000.
[67] Johnson, Thomas H., Mission Space Model Development, Reuse and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset. 98 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop Papers, March 1998,Volume 2, pp. 893-900.
[68] Lewis, R. O., Coe, G. Q., A Comparison Between the CMMS and the Conceptual Model of the Federation. Paper 97F-SIW-162, Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1997.
[69] Porter, K. (2000) JCMMS: Domain Knowledge for Developing Military Models. Paper 00F-SIW-122,Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[70] Risner, S. Conceptual Modeling in the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS), Proceedings of the 1998 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[71] Grady Booch. Object Solutions: Managing the Object-Oriented Project. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park,California, 1996.
[72] Richard L. Ressler. M&S/C4ISR Conceptual Reference Model. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22, 2000, Orlando.
[73] Robert M. Chapman. Mission-Oriented Conceptual Modeling Framework for Distributed Mission Training. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 17-22,2000, Orlando.
[74] Wayne Lindo. OneSAF Conceptual Model. Word document, 30 December 2001.
[75] Tom Johnson. Mission Space Model Development, Reuse, and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset. Paper 98S-SIW-155. Simulation Interoperability Workshop Papers, March 9-13 1998.
[76] Paul Gustavson. Conceptual to Composable: Driving Towards Rapid Development of Simulations and Simulation Spaces. Proceedings of the 2003 Intraservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, 1-4 Dec 2003, Orlando.
[77] Jack Borah. Conceptual Modeling- The Missing Link of Simulation Development. Paper 02S-SIW-074. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2002.
[78] Jack Borah. Conceptual Modeling-How Do We Move Forward?-The Next Step. Paper 02F-SIW-054.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2002.
[79] Dr. Andreas Tolk, James A. Muguira. The Level of Conceptual Interoperability Model. Paper 03F-SIW-007. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2003.
[80] Robert O. Lewis. A Comparison between the CMMS and the Conceptual Model of the Federation.Paper 97F-SIW-001. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1997.
[81] Dr. Andreas Tolk. Composable Mission Spaces and M&S Repositories Applicability of open Standards. Paper 04S-SIW-009. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2004.
[82] US. Department of Defense, Modeling and Simulation Master Plan, October 1995, http://www.dmso.mil
[83] DMSO. Department of Defense Verification, Validation and Accreditation (W&A) Recommended Practices Guide 1996.
[84] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) - Frame and Rules. IEEE Std1 516-2000, September 2000.
[85] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) -Federate Interface Specification. I EEE Std 1516.1-2000, September 2000.
[86] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA)- Object Model Template(OMT) Specification. IEEE Std 1516.2-2000, September 2000.
[87] IEEE.IEEE Draft Recommended Practice for High Level Architecture (H LA)- Federation Development and Execution Process(FEDEP).IEEE P1516.3~(?), April 2003.
[88] Department of Defense (1999). Department of Defense Handbook. Instructional Systems Development/System Approach to Training and Education. (MIL-HDBK-29612-2) Lakehurst, NJ:Naval Warfare Center Aircraft Division.
[89] Thomas H. Johnson, Mission Space Model Development, Reuse and the Conceptual Models of the Mission Space Toolset, Paper 98S-SIW-155. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[90] Jack Sheehan, LTC Terry Prosser, Maj. Harry Conley, Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS): Basic Concepts, Advanced Techniques, and Pragmatic Examples, Paper 98S-SIW-127.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[91] Cuneyd Firat. Conceptual Modeling and Conceptual Analysis in HLA. Paper 00F-SIW-151.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[92] Steve Risner, Ken Porter. Conceptual Modeling in the Joint Simulation System(JSIMS).Paper 98F-SIW-147. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 1998.
[93] Victor J. Jimenez, Sterling A. Hall, Matthew G Weber. The JSIMS Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository: An Application of HALO. Paper 98S-SIW-205. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[94] Dr. Tony Valle, Robert Knox. The JSIMS Abstract Model. Paper 99S-SIW-070. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1999.
[95] Ken Porter. JCMMS: Domain Knowledge for Developing Military Models. Paper 00F-SIW-122.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2000.
[96] Fran Dougherty, Frederick Weaver, Jr., and Mike Cluff, JWARS contribution to the DoD Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS). Paper 98S-SIW-137.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 1998.
[97] Daniel P Sagan, Daniel E. Kersey. Conceptual Modeling Lessons Learned from WARSIM2000. Paper 00S-SIW-052. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Spring 2000.
[98] Steering Group on NATO Simulation Policy and Application. NATO Modeling and Simulation Master Plan (Version1.0).Augustl 998.
[99] OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5. Available at http://www.omg.org,March 2003.
[100] Stan Grigsby. Assessing Uncertainties in the Probability of Raid Annihilation. Paper 01F-SIW-07.Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2001.
[101] Donna W. Blake. The Navy's Probability of Raid Annihilation Assessment ProcessStandards &Architecture and Systems Engineering Concept Model. Paper 03F-SIW-057. Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2003
[102] Andrew J. Duck. Army Future Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) System-of-System (SoS) Conceptual Modeling. Paper 04F-SIW-2004. Proceedings of the Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 19-24,2004, Orlando.
[103] Wang Xue-hui. Improving Simulation Conceptual Model. Paper 04F-SIW-036. Proceedings of the Fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 19-24, 2004, Orlando.
[104] James Weiner. Conceptual Modeling of a Legacy Constructive Simulation: A Use Case. Paper 03F-SIW-064. Proceedings of the Fall 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 14-19, 2003.
[105] Marten Lundgren. CMMS under the Magnifying Glass -An Approach to Deal with Substantive Interoperability. Paper 04F-SIW-010. Proceedings of the fall 2004 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Fall 2004.
[106] Michael L. Metz. Comparing the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) Conceptual Model to a Conceptual Model Standard. Paper 00F-SIW-129. Proceedings of the Fall 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Fall 2000.
[107] James Globe. Using SysML to Create a Simulation Conceptual Model of a Basic ISR Survivability Test Thread. Paper 07S-SIW-045. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[108] N. Alpay KARAGOZ. Developing Conceptual Models of the Mission Space (CMMS) - A Metamodel Based Approach. Paper 07S-SIW-056. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[109] Richard Reading. Conceptual Modeling for the Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) Testbed.Paper 07S-SIW-074. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[110] Edwin Z. Crues. An Overview of the Distributed Space Exploration Simulation (DSES) Project.Paper 07S-SIW-078. Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[111] DoD Architecture Framework Working Group: "DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.0, Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines," 9 February 2004.
[112] DoD Architecture Framework Working Group: "DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.0, Volume II: Product Descriptions," 9 February 2004.
[113] P.A. Fishwick: Simulation Model Design and Execution: Building Digital Worlds, Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ 1995.
[114] United States Marine Corps. Department of the Navy, Joint Mission Essential Task List (JMETL) Development Handbook, September 2002.
[115] CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MANUAL: UNIVERSAL JOINT TASK LIST.1 July 2002