On the Architecture of Systems for Situation Awareness

  • Michael BorthEmail author


Architectures for situation awareness systems originate from two main concerns: a functional view on the information processing that stems from domain experts’ understanding of their tasks and resources, and a system architect’s view on non-functional aspects of the operations that form such functionality within a system-of-systems realization. In this chapter, we describe how these concerns require the use of three architectural concepts: (a) information flows that transport information between systems together with metadata addressing system concerns, (b) a flexible combination of transport methods that steer these information flows, and (c) a multi-stage timing that offers short-term memory to sensibly combine and transform information and long-term memory to store higher-order knowledge. Together, these concepts address, or enable solutions for, many challenges faced by systems-of-systems for situation awareness, like configuration dynamics, handling of uncertainty, system and information health, and information protection and access control.


Information Flow Situation Awareness System Part Border Gateway Protocol Core Functionality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research has been carried out as a part of the Poseidon project at Thales under the responsibilities of the Embedded Systems Institute (ESI). This project is partially supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs under the BSIK program.


  1. 1.
    Embedded Systems Institute. The Metis project.
  2. 2.
    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heckerman D, Mamdani A, Wellman MP (1995) Real-world applications of Bayesian networks. Commun ACM 38(3):24–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koller D, Pfeffer A (1997) Object-oriented Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence – UAI’97, Providence, Rhode Island, pp 302–313Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lloyd’s List.
  6. 6.
    Lloyd’s List Intelligence.
  7. 7.
    Maier MW (1998) Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst Eng 1(4):267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearl J (1985) Bayesian networks: a model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference of the cognitive science society, University of California, Irvine, pp 329–334Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pearl J (2009) Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quoitin B, Uhlig S (2005) Modeling the routing of an autonomous system with C-BGP. IEEE Netw 19(6):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, ChampaignzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.
  14. 14.
    Trivellato D, Spiessens F, Zannone N, Etalle S (2009) POLIPO: policies & OntoLogies for interoperability, portability, and autonomy. In: 10th IEEE international symposium on policies for distributed systems and networks (POLICY’09). IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Press Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp 110–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embedded Systems InstituteEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations