Enabling an Executable Context Simulation Framework (ECSF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Computational Modeling & Simulation Computational Modeling & Simulation Engineering Theses & Dissertations Engineering Spring 2011 Adding Executable Context to Executable Architectures: Enabling an Executable Context Simulation Framework (ECSF) Johnny J. Garcia Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/msve_etds Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Garcia, Johnny J.. "Adding Executable Context to Executable Architectures: Enabling an Executable Context Simulation Framework (ECSF)" (2011). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Computational Modeling & Simulation Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/yr2g-yp42 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/msve_etds/26 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Computational Modeling & Simulation Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computational Modeling & Simulation Engineering Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADDING EXECUTABLE CONTEXT TO EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURES: ENABLING AN EXECUTABLE CONTEXT SIMULATION FRAMEWORK (ECSF) by Johnny J. Garcia M.S. December, 2002, Florida Institute of Technology M.B.A. December, 2003, Florida Institute of Technology B.S. May, 1999, St. Leo College B.A. May, 1999, St. Leo College A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Old Dominion University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MODELING AND SIMULATION OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2011 Approved by: Andreas Tolk (Director) Tom Pawlowski (Member) rederic D. McKenzie (Member) ABSTRACT ADDING EXECUTABLE CONTEXT TO EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURES: ENABLING AN EXECUTABLE CONTEXT SIMULATION FRAMEWORK (ECSF) Johnny J. Garcia Old Dominion University, 2011 Director: Dr. Andreas Tolk A system that does not stand alone is represented by a complex entity of component combinations that interact with each other to execute a function. In today's interconnected world, systems integrate with other systems - called a system-of- systems infrastructure: a network of interrelated systems that can often exhibit both predictable and unpredictable behavior. The current state-of-the-art evaluation process of these system-of-systems and their community of practitioners in the academic community are limited to static methods focused on defining who is doing what and where. However, to answer the questions of why and how a system operates within complex systems-of-systems interrelationships, a system's architecture and context must be observed overtime, its executable architecture, to discern effective predictable and unpredictable behavior. The objective of this research is to determine a method for evaluating a system's executable architecture and assess the contribution and efficiency of the specified system before it is built. This research led to the development of concrete steps that synthesize the observance of the executable architecture, assessment recommendations provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Code of Best Practice for Command and Control (C2) Assessment, and the metrics for operational efficiency provided by the Military Missions and Means Framework. Based on the research herein, this synthesis is designed to evaluate and assess system-of- systems architectures in their operational context to provide quantitative results. Ill Copyright, MMXI, by Johnny J. Garcia, All Rights Reserved IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Andreas Tolk, for his continuous support, guidance and friendship throughout this work. His vision, enthusiasm and dedication to science, modeling and simulation, and education have been influential. There are no words to express my gratitude, admiration and affection for him. It has been a privilege to work under his supervision. I would like to thank my committee member, Dr. Tom Pawlowski, for his guidance and feedback at critical points in my research. I would like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Frederick Mckenzie and Dr. Charles Keating, for their valuable suggestions throughout this study. All together, my committee's insights enriched my dissertation immensely. I would like to thank all my family, friends and sponsors for their continuous encouragement. "But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength" (2 Timothy 4:17). Without the grace of the Lord I could not have accomplished this work. I am grateful and indebted to my mother and father, Juan and Diana Garcia, for their love, throughout my life. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the extensive support and love of my mother and father-in-law, Julie Phelps and Serafin Escobar. I would also like to commemorate my grandmother, Delia Lopez, who was my rock throughout my life and told me to never give up; I truly miss her. Finally and most specially, this study is dedicated to my wonderful wife of 21 years, Lorena Garcia, who finds the best in me and stands by me with her endless patience, strength, friendship and love through the journey of life and to my wonderful twin V daughters (Hope and Faith) who have provided me continuous love, hugs and kisses when daddy was tired and worn from the process of this work. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. OVERVIEW 1 1.2. RESEARCH METHOD 5 1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 5 1.4. RESEARCH APPROACH 6 1.4.1. ACTIVITIES 6 1.4.2. IMPACT 7 1.5. RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 7 2. LITERATURE RESEARCH 9 2.1. STATE-OF-THE-ART IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 13 2.2. STATE-OF-THE-ART IN ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION 14 2.2.1. EVALUATION OF THE ARCHITECTURE 15 2.3. WHAT IS A SYSTEM-OF-SYSTEMS? 17 2.4. STATE-OF-THE-ART IN SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 18 2.5. STATE-OF-THE-ART IN ARCHITECTURAL FRAMEWORKS 19 2.5.1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORK (DODAF) PROVIDES THE WHO, WHAT AND WHERE 20 2.6. STATE-OF-THE-ART IN EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURES 21 3. RESEARCH CHALLENGE AND PROBLEM SET 23 3.1. WHY IS THIS A GAP? 23 3.2. SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 24 3.3. PROPOSED SOLUTION THEORY AND METHOD 25 3.4. EVALUATION METHOD 27 vii 4. EVALUATION OF EXISTING METHODS REGARDING THEIR APPLICABILITY 29 4.1. NATO CODE OF BEST PRACTICES 29 4.2. DODAF AND EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURES 31 4.2.1. EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURE THAT APPLY DODAF TECHNIQUES 32 4.2.2. INTEGRATION DEFINITION (IDEF) 33 4.3. ZACHMAN 37 4.4. 4+1 VIEW MODEL 38 4.4.1. LOGICAL ARCHITECTURE 40 4.4.2. LOGICAL VIEW NOTATION 40 4.4.3. PROCESS ARCHITECTURE 41 4.4.4. DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURE 41 4.4.5. PHYSICAL ARCHITECTURE 42 4.4.6. SCENARIOS 42 4.5. MODEL-DRIVEN ENGINEERING 42 4.6. MISSIONS AND MEANS FRAMEWORK (MMF) 44 4.6.1. MAPPING TO DODAF 45 5. METHOD DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW 48 5.1. DISCRETE EVENT SYSTEM SPECIFICATION (DEVS) AND DEVS UNIFIED PROCESS (DUNIP) 48 5.2. FEDERATING EXECUTABLE CONTEXT WITH FEDEP/DSEEP 50 5.3. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) AND MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE (MOP) 52 6. EXPECTED RESULTS 54 6.1. FIRST EXAMPLE: DEADLOCK 54 viii 6.1.1. MUTUAL EXCLUSION 55 6.1.2. A THREAD HOLDING A RESOURCE IS ABLE TO PERFORM AN UNBOUNDED WAIT 55 6.1.3. RESOURCES CANNOT BE FORCIBLY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEIR CURRENT OWNERS 55 6.1.4. A CIRCULAR WAIT CONDITION 55 6.1.5. SUMMARY OF DEADLOCK 57 6.2. THEORETICAL EXAMPLE OF EC: LIVELOCK 57 6.2.1. STARVATION 58 6.2.2. INFINITE EXECUTION 58 6.2.3. BREACH OF SAFETY PROPERTIES 58 6.2.4. ANALYTICAL ALGORITHMS 58 6.2.5. DEADLOCK AVOIDANCE 59 6.2.6. DEADLOCK/UVELOCK RECOVERY 60 6.2.7. DEADLOCK/UVELOCK PREVENTION 61 6.2.8. EXECUTABLE CONTEXT EXAMPLES FOR SOLVING DEADLOCK AND LIVELOCK61 6.2.9. DEADLOCK AND LIVELOCK PROBLEM FORMATION 63 7. OPERATIONAL EXAMPLE 68 7.1. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT (DOE) FOR OPERATIONAL EXAMPLE 68 7.1.1. PUTTING EC TO PRACTICE: DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXECUTABLE CONTEXT SIMULATION FRAMEWORK (ECSF) 71 7.2. EXECUTABLE CONTEXT: FOUR-STEP METHOD IN PRACTICE 82 7.2.1. STEP 1: DEVELOP THE BLUEPRINT EXAMPLE FOR JOINT CLOSE AIR SUPPORT (JCAS) AS IT RELATES TO A NET ENABLED WEAPON (NEW) 83 7.2.2. STEP 2: BUILD AN EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURE 91 ix 7.2.3. STEP 3: MAP EXECUTABLE ARCHITECTURE TO THE BLUEPRINT 97 7.2.4. STEP 4: FEDERATE ALL STEPS INTO AN EXECUTABLE METHOD 101 7.3. RESULTS OF THE NEW EXPERIMENT 102 8. CONCLUSION Ill 9. EXTENSIBILITY OF THE RESEARCH 115 10. REFERENCES 119 11. APPENDIX A CODE BLOCK FOR CLASS 129 12. APPENDIX B DEVS JAVA CODE BLOCK 132 13. VITAE 140 X LIST OF FIGURES :igure 1: V-MODEL 3 :igure 2: System and operational architecture disjointed evaluations 4 :igure 3: Buede's depiction of a system's "context" (Buede, 2000, p. 38) 9 :igure 4: Executable context (EC) as it relates to knowledge-based evaluation 12 igure 5: Research intentions from information to knowledge 23 :igure 6: EC's four steps for evaluating targeted systems 26 igure 7: NCOBP problem formulation 30 igure 8: Executable context problem formulations 31 igure 9: IDEF 3 symbols (UOB symbols) 36 igure 10: Examples of IDEF 3 diagram 36 igure 11: The 4+1 view model 40 igure 12: The synthesis and employment processes for the "how and why" 45 igure 13: DEVS Unified Process (DUMP) 49 igure 14: Deadlock model 56 igure 15: Deadlock with four processes and four resources 57 igure 16: Wait graph - deadlock situation with termination of thread 3 avoidance 59 igure 17: Executable context deadlock and livelock analysis 64 igure 18: Flagged state transition map 65 igure 19: ECSF 71 igure 20: Remote data ingesting 73 igure 21: Executable context integration services 74 igure 22: Executable context integration services 75 igure 23: Executable context simulation framework integration with other models...