Effects on SISO

1
Effects on SISO RPR

• So How does this affect the RPR Community
• The Capstone Definition applies directly to their
  SISO product
• The Class 1 definition (Template RFOM) offers a
  possible migration path to stronger standards
  should they want to Slow the Pace
• The Common Foundation RFOM offers a bucket of wet
  cement (standard) to jump into with both feet
  should they believe that the burden of managed
  FOM evolution will have sufficient
  interoperability payoff.
• Both Class 1, and 2, however require that
  sufficient Meta-data be assembled to show that
  their FOM/Federation(s) is/are a proven, used,
  usable, supported, and reusable community(s) set
  of HLA OMT Material. Note that the "bar" (no pun
  intended) of OMT and meta-data completeness is
  set higher for Class 2 since It cannot be used in
  subset.
• Research Topic Could BOMs be derived? Would
  they be useful to the RPR community? Actually
  boils down to Will there be conflicting
  representations with only one FOM for multiple
  communities? (The Variant OMT subset issue.)
• How many sections of the RPR-FOM will be blank
  (DDM, Res.)
• Summarizing, the RPR community has a choice of
  standards development cost/payoff. They must
  determine their approach.

2
Community FOM Lifecycles,or Persistence,
Interoperability Reuse, and Freedom, or Why
One Size RFOM Does NOT Fit All!

• Initial RFOMs are community experiments
• Longevity and granularity of community reusable
  FOM material may vary widely
• A OMT material reuse approach that works for a 10
  year training system lifecycle will not
  necessarily work for a 2 year weapon system RD
  program or 2 month policy analysis effort.
• SISO serves a range of simulation communities and
  needs to be supportive of a range of OMT material
  reuse and standardization options as those
  communities tackle the HLA reuse challenge.