On the Architecture of Systems for Situation Awareness
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.
KeywordsInformation Flow Situation Awareness System Part Border Gateway Protocol Core Functionality
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.Embedded Systems Institute. The Metis project. http://www.esi.nl/metis
- 2.Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longman, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 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.Lloyd’s List. http://www.lloydslist.com
- 6.Lloyd’s List Intelligence. http://www.lloydslistintelligence.com
- 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.Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 13.The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. http://www.parismou.org
- 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