SPAR Core Group
Report for Meeting 4
Canterbury Hotel, Sutter Street, Downtown San Francisco - 4/6-Nov-97
Briefing, discussion and break out session during ARPI Workshop. This
meeting involved a number of Specialism Experts Panel and User Panel
members who were at the ARPI Workshop as well as other commentators.
- SPAR Presentation to ARPI Workshop, Austin Tate, 4-Nov-97,
- AITS Warplan Brief to ARPI Workshop, Adam Pease, 4-Nov-97,
- SPAR Work Summary at end of ARPI Workshop, Adam Pease, 6-Nov-97,
Take Home Messages
Here is a summary by AT of the main
points that he came away with from the meeting.
- Many people could not see how the top level abstract model could
realistically support all the nitty gritty detail they know they need in
military plans. We have to do a better PR job as several people put it.
- Several people (e.g. DM) thought we should just accept the top level
model as is, and not spend all our time refining it. I take this to
mean we should REDUCE effort on the top down approach, but not
necessarily stop our discussions where we are aware of issues to resolve
(e.g. agreeing the 20 sentences or their replacement will leave us in a
better position to keep a firm grip on the conceptual model as issues
arise during the implementations discussion for JFACC and TIE 97-1).
- We need to ground the work in real military plan representations
without losing the top level conceptual model. This is where effort
should focus next. We plan to develop detailed specialisations for SPAR
Several others will be seeking to ensure specialisations are possible
for other programs, but these 2 will focus the core grounp work over the
next few weeks. We expect to explain the work we are doing by having
(along with those in the core team we can consider as primarilt
responsible for making their level happen): a top level SPAR-generic
(AT/AP); a middle level SPAR-military (aka AITS Warplan - AP/TC); and
specific instantiations - in particulat JFACC Plan Rep (BS/KM/AP) and
TIE 97-1 (BS).
- the JFACC plan representation (AP/BS/KM)
as has been started by AP with the JFACC specialisation of CPR.
- to support enough plan representation that we could tie together the
components of TIE 97-1 (to give an ARPI realistic focus to the work).
- We should not rush out the next version until input from 3 can be
rolled into our thinking. SPAR 0.2 was meant to be just an increment of
the outstanding issues list added to the current documen t after we had
quick feedback. However another version so soon after the meeting that
does not alter in terms of the core model could be misinterpreted. My
suggestion is that we replan the releases as follows:
This would still allow us to give sensible input to AITS Warplan efforts
around February/March as is required. The main RFC stage between 0.2
and 0.3 is then 2 months each rather than the originally planned 3
months, but that is not too bad.
- 30-Nov-97 - 0.1 with revised issues is available via the web
with email on this to firstname.lastname@example.org
- 28-Feb-98 - 0.2 with revised model accounting for experience
on JFACC and TIE 97-1 sample encodings.
- 30-Apr-98 - 0.3 final draft model
- 31-May-98 - 1.0 published.
- Uncertainty needs to be built in more widely than in numeric values.
But it may be possible to make progress on sharing SOME information by
employing a basic mechanism of allowing specs. of a wider range of
entity values representing things evaluable in the real world using
uncertain values combined with definitive value bounds where computable.
I suggested a new design guideline to addres sthis in a previous message.
- There was some comment (e.g. DE) that SPAR should not attempt to be a
basis for implementation structures in some systems, and that it should
concentrate on being an interlingua only (like PIF and NIST PSL). Quite
crucially, I understand that Tom Garvey confirmed during the Wednesday
morning breakout session that he agreed that SPAR should just be an
interlingua and not attempt to be the basis for implementation
structures. This is contrary to the way I understaood his guidance
befopre, and conflicts with some of the issues we were asked to address
such as efficiency and so on. As I was out of the meeting for the half
hour that this "change" in guidance took place, I would like Tom to
confirm this new guidance, or to clarify what he actually said and wants
Page maintained by Austin Tate
Last updated: Mon Nov 24 13:08:37 1997
Please make contact if you have any comments on these pages or the SPAR