Simulation Integrated with Web 3.0 as Smart Support for Command and Control

Agostino G. BruzzoneMISS GenoaGenoa, Italy

Email agostino@itim.unige.itURL www.itim.unige.it

Roberto CianciDIPTEM University of Genoa

Genoa, ItalyEmail cianci@diptem.unige.it

URL www.diptem.unige.it

Francesco LongoMSC-LES University of Calabria

Cosenza, ItalyEmail f.longo@unical.itURL www.msc-les.org

Giovanni CanticeRAV 80 Italian Army

Cassino, ItalyEmail giovanni.cantice@gmail.comhq.nato.int

URL www.esercito.difesa.it

Simonluca PoggiSimulationTeam

Savona, ItalyEmail poggi@simulationteam.com

URL www.simulationteam.com

ABSTRACT

This paper propose some preliminary research on thepotential of the Web 3.0 concept into military training;the authors present an overview of this technologyconsidering the application framework and developedthe requirements for getting benefits of combiningSimulation and Web 3.0; a proposal about a scenarioand model is presented as case study to verify andvalidate this approach.

INTRODUCTION

The Web 3.0, as semantic web, allows to support quickand effective identification of resources and conditionby correlating the info and data; in fact usually nosingle database or network source contains all thecritical information for complex problems. A criticalquestion it is if this capability could be applied to thetraining process of military simulation; based onsubject matter experts operating in this area the answerresults clearly positive; in fact to create a semanticinfrastructure could results in an important support tosimulate and facilitate data mining; in fact by thisapproach it becomes possible to show relationshipamong resources and services and, through intelligentsupport algorithms, to underline specific result bycreating effective opportunities able to associatedifferent contents with resources on the dbase and web(foir this context obviously mostly intranet). This isespecially true for the intelligence field where the rightgathering, correlation and spreading of the rightinformation is determinant in a asymmetrical fullspectrum military environment. Semantic technologies

allows users to easily build new web sites andapplication to manage their needs, presenting variousthreads in a composite picture. The semantic webservice/application could serve also as applicationintegration mechanism by using meta-data that areinterpreted in the meaning, realizing a common anduniversal understanding. In fact the combination of thisapproach with Intelligent Agents driving ComputerGenerated Forces (IA-CGF) could support quick andeffective creation of complex scenarios in asymmetricwarfare conditions for training. The authors aredeveloping these concepts for a demonstration devotedto training and to complete VV&A with furtherpotential for test and analysis and decision supportapplications.

SEMANTIC WEB

The first step it is to consider the innovative conceptsbehind Web 3.0: Berners-Lee, et al (2001) wrote “anew form of web content that is meaningful tocomputers will unleash a revolution of newpossibilities." This is the concept related to theSemantic Web.Tim Berners-Lee (well known for inventing theWorld Wide Web), already presented this idea at thevery first World Wide Web conference in 1994. Thepotentials of the Semantic Web are also stronglyreaffirmed in Shadbolt et al. (2006): the authorsrevisit the Semantic Web idea stating that it willmainly rely on key insights, tools and techniquesdeveloped during the last 50 years of research in thefield of Artificial Intelligence. Nowadays all thedisciplines (life sciences, environmental sciences,

Page 65

business, commerce and defence to cite a few) ask fordata (potentially available on the web) integrationcoming from different sources and the need forintelligent information combination (according touser requirements) is constantly growing. On theactual web (syntactic web) the main difficulty lies inthe interpretation of the text being searched that is notsemantically annotated. In 2006, Tim Berners-Leesaid that the Semantic Web has to be regarded as oneof the main components of the Web 3.0 (Shannon,2006). The main difference among Web 1.0, 2.0 and3.0 is based on bandwidth availability that allows theuse of more packages, functions and applications forunlimited time with heavy multimedia applications(video web), that were before less manageable. Fromthis point of view Web 3.0 allows users to extendprevious communication capabilities by integratingthem with multimedia contents and automatic search.In effect the Web 3.0 should include multiple aspects;among others the most important are the advanceduse of artificial intelligence techniques, theorganization of information in databases (forinformation access) and Web 3D (three dimensionalenvironment). Web 3.0 should adopt a multiplatformtechnology that can be easily integrated with differentOperative Systems, architectures, browsers andshould use many libraries and frameworkapplications. Therefore the first step is to improvedata interoperability levels (data web), then thecombination of data mining and intelligent agentsshould support the intelligent integration of availableinformation (in Web 2.0 this step is carried out by theuser according to multiple syntactic searches and datare-organization). Following this process Web 3.0becomes a Service Oriented Architecture that can alsoinclude a 3D application to create a set of threedimensional environments as demonstrated in systemssuch as "Second Life". What is?In this paper the authors explore the possibility andthe potentials to use Web 3.0 (specifically theSemantic Web) for training processes in militarysimulation with particular attention to Command andControl System services. In this context the SemanticWeb can strongly support the user’s requirements andpredict what the user means by his query and delivermore relevant researches and results. A frameworkthat includes a Semantic Web provides a strongpotential in describing data and applications. Theauthors propose using these concepts in a frameworkfor supporting Intelligent Agents ComputerGenerated Forces in generating threats for complexurban scenarios.The state of the art on the Semantic Web reveals awide spectrum of research topics and results as well.Semantic Web is currently a very exciting topic for

researchers in different areas: from distributedinformation systems to artificial intelligence. One ofthe most important features of Semantic Web (as wellas the current syntactic Web) is related to informationsearch. When users search for information they wouldlike to see only relevant results. They do not like toretrieve data that are unrelated to their search string.The major problem is that in the current Web it isdifficult to find good research results due to a non-semantically annotated interpretation. Algorithms thatinterpret the syntactic content in order to return goodsearch results are necessary. These algorithms candecide whether or not to take user context and thesearch history of users into consideration.New approaches and techniques were developed inthe last few years to better search results. Forinstance, Hsua and Wub (2006) introduced a newapproach that determines the relevance of a Web pagein its context, based on the relevancy context graph.These graphs estimate the distance and the relevancydegree between the retrieved document and the giventopic. By calculating the word distributions of thegeneral and topic-specific feature words, the methodis expected to preserve the property of the relevancycontext graph and reflect it on the word distributions.In contrast, Godoy and Amandi (2006) developed adocument clustering algorithm, named WebDCC(Web Document Conceptual Clustering) in order toacquire user profiles, taking in consideration theirsearch history that is properly clustered.Another difficulty of current Web is represented by theintegration of the various data sources in order toproduce good search results. In fact information spaceis scattered over several sources that have different andnon-standard structures, schemas and meta-data. Theconcept of community helps to overcome this limit. Infact, when one queries for a specific topic, the searchcan focus on the data provided by an existingcommunity around that topic, excluding unrelated ones.Benatallah et al. (2006) underlined the problem ofquerying heterogeneously structured data and proposeda flexible and user-centric query matching algorithm. Itexploits both community descriptions and peerrelationships to find e-catalogs that best match a userquery.Another relevant aspect in Semantic Web is people trust.Consider for instance people authentication andreputation problems, users’ privacy, confidentialinformation management, etc. Artz and Gil (2007-a,2007-b) studied trust feelings in content on theSemantic Web, identifying and analysing just whatfactors people use to decide what content they will trustand why. In this case simulation was very useful inorder to study alternative models of content trust.Concerning people trust and specifically users’ privacy

Page 66

during e-commerce activities, Jutla et al. (2006)propose a privacy management architecture, consistingof client-side and web-side architectural datacomponents and services which inform the user ofonline privacy and trust within e-commerce tasks.Client-side ontology and data structures forrepresenting user contexts are introduced. In thecontext of the Semantic Web, social networks arecrucial to realize a web of trust, which enables theestimation of information credibility andtrustworthiness. Matsuo et al. (2007) described a socialnetwork extraction system called POLYPHONET, thatextracts relations of persons, detects groups of persons,and obtains keywords for a person by using severaladvanced techniques. Finally, social relations areclassified in order to obtain and use person-to-wordrelations. A particular characteristic of Semantic Webis related to the extension of Web Services byrepresenting explicit meanings. One aspect of theformal definition of Semantic Web Services is thedescription of the data that are processed by SemanticWeb Services. The Web Service ModellingFramework, WSMF, (Fensel and Bussler, 2002)proposes a formal representation of Web Services, thatallows access machine executable semantics. Note thatusually different applications domains have differentconceptualizations of their specific data sets. Forinstance, the health care industry where numerousproviders use different standards to describe theirapplication data. In particular Dogac et al. (2006)defined formal representations of healthcare data inorder to develop Semantic Web Services.Another important element of Semantic Web Servicedefinition is the composition of Web Services. In factan appropriate composition of different Web Servicecan produce the desired result for a client. Rao et al.(2006) studied an automatic Web Servicescomposition, based on Linear Logic and theoremproving. In addition, it is necessary to specify howSemantic Web Services are executed; in particular alife cycle determines the order of Semantic WebServices use. When a request comes from a client, anappropriate set of Web Services have to be invoked inorder to satisfy the client’s requirements. Differentresearchers have studied a Web Services discoveryapproach. For instance, Bianchini et al. (2006)introduces a discovery approach based on a three-layerontology, each layer describing Web Services morespecifically in the form of an abstraction hierarchy.

MILITARY APPLICATIONS

The complexity of military applications comes fromthe necessity of integrating more options in just one

complex application. In the case of a genericCommand and Control (C2) system, such applicationsmust guarantee:• the visualization of a referenced and accurate

cartography that usually includes a series ofmilitary data (in general units, means, tools,capability or references identifications)

• the possibility of sending standard messages• the management of databases containing operative

and logistics data (in a classified environment aswell)

• the possibility of operations planning byscenarios/situations investigation and bycorrelating collected information in order toimplement the received orders and transform theminto possible actions/reactions.

The C2 system can be eventually completed with theintegration/interoperability with other data/systems;however the system often is not able to provide amid-level military decision maker with a completegeneral or particular framework, fundamental for aproper application of the decisional process and for aquick and coherent decision. This is mostly due to theimplementation of partial architectures in the C2Systems design because they only take intoconsideration a specialized referenced environment(ground, sea, air, cyberspace) and they do notconsider other realities (by their inherentconstruction). Such situations can happen due todeveloper’s choice, opportunity or blindness.Indeed, it is a fact that database or network resourcescannot contain all the needed information. The mostrecent tenets on information spreading/sharing suchas those foreseen by NCW/NEC (Network CentricWarfare/ Network Enabled Capability) intend tomitigate this shortfall by applying circularmethodologies for information spreading and sharingso that data can be managed and used (effectively andefficiently) by a large number of users. Thepossibility of modeling and simulating these differentapproaches for information spreading and sharingcould make possible a more complete and detailedanalysis of any possible scenario.From this point of view Web 3.0 techniques representan enormous potential, especially if we imagine itsapplication in a functional modern C2 System,oriented to NCW/NEC techniques. The semantictechniques are used to multiply database queries indifferent functional areas and environments and tosimplify data research by using IA (Intelligent Agents)and information correlation. Data mining can be usedfor simulating and showing resources and servicesrelationships or for supporting the representation ofspecific actors on training simulators (using IA). In

Page 67

addition, by using ad-hoc algorithms, it is possible tocreate great opportunities by associating variousresource contents of different realities via intranet andto represent dynamic and complete JCOP (JointCommon Operating Picture), that can be used topopulate Constructive Simulator databases andreproduce real world scenarios. The resulting outputmay help to quickly predict possible actions/reactionsor make hypotheses in the intelligence domain and instatic and asymmetric environments, and lead tounderstanding the great importance of correctinformation reading, representation, and spreading infull spectrum environments. For example, analysisapplied to an urban 3D environment in order to predictpossible shooting directions used by a sniper orpositions which can be used to trigger IEDs(improvised explosive device) or launch ambushes.Semantic capabilities could be used to manage localinformation from a commander on the ground in orderto create its own order of battle, collect information,and to send needed information to his subordinates toreproduce a graphic planning or to search informationon internet by using assisted Web 3.0 researchbenefits. Web 3.0 technology could be used asmechanism to integrate data and metadata of differentsystems.

Figure 1- Queries to be elaborated by IntelligentAgents

MILITARY REQUIREMENTS WEB 3.0

As already mentioned, in the last years thedevelopment, deployment and interest for networkedinformation systems for military applications arereally increased. Referring to a multiple platformstandard architecture, it is possible to observe newgenerations of client systems that integrate advancedcommunication paradigms and functionality; for

instance information repository could be queried fromclients with mechanism related to events andcorrelated in new high level events as complexinformation ontology and information managementarchitecture and comprehensive security model.Web 3.0 and related semantic web services have alsoreceived key elements from new software technology(CORBA, J2EE, C# and .NET), realizing newinterfaces in a wide variety of technologies ashardware, components, internal components foroperating systems, servers, etc. The possibility to mapmilitary architectures as GIG (Global InformationGrid) or NCW/NEC (Network Centric Warfare/Network Enabled Capability) with semantic webservices is a real matter. In a hasty overview we canimagine a relative overlap between a general SOA(Service-Oriented Architecture) and GIGarchitectures as both normally use XML (eXtensibleMarkup Language) information representation andnotification capabilities. Furthermore, some concernsshould be identified in the web architecture weaknessin terms of lack of support for real-time highavailability delivering mechanisms or informationservices. To be more restrictive in the militaryenvironment there are other practical considerationssuch as the feasibility of scaling concept, size ofdevelopment, level of communications and disruptionthat could be part of a military requirement.A general GIG architecture should be planned as a“rapid targeting” or “rapid response”, as anapplication that has to collect information and collectdata from different sources. It makes clear thenecessity of a meta-data repository to identify classesof servers and types of information that are availablefor querying as well as the subset of information thatshould be relevant to a generalizedengagement/plan/decision. Keeping in mind that, inthis case, the information sources are militarycomputing applications or information systems, it isnecessary also to identify military capabilities to beapplied in standard formats. Standard formats are thekey policies to the proposed approach because theyallow the systems to be extended to new applications,new clients, new security policies and new systems.In military systems, at the beginning the applicationsdownload initial data for maps, GPS, current tacticaldata, situation report, status report, etc., and onlywhen a new event occur or the refresh replicationmechanism is set, the data source "publishes" the newsummary, normally in a data form suitable for a rapidtransmission on the network. Large data object (as ahigh resolution picture) could be downloadedseparately only if needed. In this case an importantrequirement is represented by the security policies:data should be filtered and enforced based on the

Page 68

quality of mission. The same should happen regardingnon-classified information that has to be introducedand downloaded in a specific operational mapquadrant where a considerable number of classifiedinformation/data are present or, vice-versa, introduceonly classified/unclassified data using a filteredbandwidth to avoid the unwanted information. In thiscase, the repository should collect all events and storethem persistently in different DBs until they expire.During the validity period any applications might userapidly and query the context also to associate theevents to another map quadrant.Additional “operational” capability/properties for thisplatform should be the ability to function robustly in ahostile environment: capability to re-configure theplatform due to disruptions and provide the users withhigh performances in every network configuration(increase in number of clients, rates of clients, systemfailures, loading components, etc.).

Web 3.0 and C2 systems integration: critical issues

A more detailed list and description of the mainproblems in applying web 3.0 technologies in a C2military system are reported as follows:• Messages size: large sizes of data are destined to fail

because of the problem with the bandwidthavailability. In a traditional network with largebandwidth this is not a performance factor, whilst in amobile tactical network among soldiers (asindividuals) or low level command where the sharedtransmission capability is a decisive factor, it turnsout to be the choke point of efficiency. Reduce thesize and optimize the content of information becomesvital for this network as the standard Web System(WS) allows for negotiating a non-standard protocolto represent messages and would force the rules.

• Security enforcement: the servers, that embed securitymechanism, do not guarantee the client about theenforcement of the message. The only guarantee is toimplement an encryption policy or to send thedocument to a server that can respond to the client’sexpectations.

• Time critical events/message: in a militaryenvironment a lot of events/messages are important ina specific period of time; after this period theirusefulness expires and they can be archived,disposed, erased. But in a particular situation (i.e.artillery coordinates) could be reused or turn intoobsolete in less time than expected, hence thecommunication architecture must be able to deliverthe right message at the right time, archive allvaluable or history data, upload or expire other data.

• Quality of service: properties as security, robustness,performance, automatic configuration and othermilitary specification must underlined as they arenormally included in a GIG system. Scalability andperformance are moreover important for the WSsystem.

• Reliable messaging: messages are normally a basicpillar for a military GIG system. A good WS must beinclude a notification application that can define acontent-based publish-subscribe system and becompliant with the standard communication systemproperties.

• Scalability: the scalability needs have the sameweight of time critical events delivering orarchitectural capabilities to favorite the decisionalprocesses. Scalability becomes enormously importantwhen we take into consideration the situation whennodes crash, messages are lost and, dynamicconfiguration problems present themselves, as in aneural network fundamental to maintaining theconnection with the final scope.

INTEGRATION IA-CGF AND WEB 3.0

The authors are investigating the development of aframework, based on Web 3.0 technologies, that will beinterrogated by IA-CGF units (Intelligent AgentsComputer Generated Forces). The framework mustprovide the user with the evaluation of the bestopportunities to set up asymmetric threats (i.e.ambushes, IED, snipers, etc.) in order to create anasymmetric scenario focused on effectiveness of theactions (including the impact of people behavior,human modifiers and network-related issues within a3D environment). Figure 2 shows (in a possiblearchitecture) how the IA-CGF interact with the Web3.0 technologies as well as with multiple informationsources.

Page 69

Figure 2: Intelligent Agents Navigating in Web 3.0

Figure 3: IA-CGF operating over complex urbanscenarios

Figure 3 shows an example of a system (developed bythe Simulation Team of the University of Genoa)implementing IA-CGF operating over complex urbanscenarios.Consider the case of an attack with snipers, the Web3.0 technologies make possible an automaticidentification of such an attack on the basis of amultiple factors investigation carried out over thesocial-terrain database by using the semantic queries. Inthis case, the following elements must be consideredand included:• OppForce Capabilities• Security Systems• Police• Population Behavior• Local Opinion• Domestic Opinion• UAV & Sensor• Convoys Data• Hiding Opportunities• Intelligence• Blind Spots• Local Support• Sniper Opportunities• IED Opportunities

Noticeable fact is that IA-CGF are ComputerGenerated Forces managed by Intelligent Agents basedon human behavior models (fear, aggressiveness,fatigue, stress, etc.). The IA-CGF Units are able tooperate autonomously based on applicative sources ofintelligence and human behaviors. In fact the IA-CGFunits operate by collecting information from differentsources based on Web 3.0 technologies (in particularSemantic techniques) and apply Artificial Intelligencealgorithms in order to identify composite elements (i.e.synergy between a blind spot shooting and an hidingopportunity). In particular, IA-CGFs are expected toacquire multiple information from specific databases ina semantic way and then to use it to support decisionmaking.The present research is aimed to develop ademonstrator able to create scenarios that can begenerated automatically by integrating IA-CGF andWeb 3.0 technologies in reference to threats such asIED (Improvised Explosive Devices) allocation for aterrorist attack. The authors’ goal is to provide IA-CGFunits with all necessary information in order toestablish the optimal IEDs position. A further step ofintegration could be to visualize all units in adistributed (web or GIG or other networks) 3Denvironment created by extracting information aboutthe territory of interest from the users in order toprovide such support not only in creating scenarios fortraining, but even for supporting users in AAR (AfterAction Review).A wide range of information is requested to allocateIEDs, for instance: Territory Information: 3D Map, location,

geographic coordinates, area, land boundaries,Coastline, maritime claims, climate, terrain,elevation extremes, land use, etc.

People Information and statistics about the area:Population, Age Structure, Social, Ethnic,Religious, Economic and Political features, etc-

Transportation: airports, heliports, pipelines,railways, roadways, waterways, ports andterminals, etc.

Information from the real world: media and news,direct information from the field, sources ofintelligence.

This gives an idea of the potential of this approach interms of training; in addition it is evident that sucharchitecture could be very effective in operativeanalysis and decision support on operational planningby integrating these technologies with real world data.In addition, during the development of the proposeddemonstrator for training, it will be possible to proceedextensively with VV&A (Verification, Validation andAccreditation). Once the demonstrator is successfullycompleted, it could be interesting, as a follow up, to

Page 70

consider adapting this approach to support decisionmaking with integration even with real world data. Justone among possible further developments of thissolution could be a decision support system and testand analysis tool based on these concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

Semantic Web and in general Web 3.0 is verychallenging in improving search results and inintegrating all data in a semantic way by using newtechniques and approaches such as ontology of specifictopics and domains. Taking into consideration sectorcomplexity and data sensibility, Web 3.0 providesmany opportunities for military training and fordecisions making. In particular, the semantic techniquescan be used for multiple database queries in differentfunctional areas and environments, to simplify dataresearch by using IA and information correlation, toimprove data mining in order to simulate and showresources and services relations or to help therepresentation of specific actors on training simulatorsby using IA. The research in integrating IA-CGF withWeb 3.0 for demonstrating the possibility to createautomatically realistic threats for supporting training itis a very interesting opportunity; in this context itresulted critical the proper connection among militaryusers and simulation experts for defining properly thedevelopment boundaries for being able to create arealistic and useful demonstrator with reasonableresources.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are glad to thank Michele Turi for thesupport he provided in reviewing MilitaryRequirements.

REFERENCES

• Artz D. and Gil Y., (2007-a), “A Survey of Trustin Computer Science and the Semantic Web”,Journal of Web Semantics, Volume 5, Issue 2

• Artz D. and Gil Y. (2007-b), “Towards ContentTrust of Web Resources”, Journal of WebSemantics, Volume 5, Issue 4

• Bell D., Bussler C., Yang J., (2007) “The SemanticWeb and Web Services”, Web Semantics: Science,Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5225–226

• Benatallah B., Hacid M., Paik H., Rey C.andToumani F., (2006) “Towards Semantic-driven,Flexible and Scalable Framework for Peering andQuerying e-Catalog Communities”, InformationSystems archive, Volume 31, 266- 294, Issue 4 (June 2006), special issue: The semantic web andweb services, Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Berners-Lee T., Hendler J., Lassila O. (2001). TheSemantic Web. Scientific American Magazine.Retrived, June 4, 2010, fromhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web

• Bianchini D., De Antonellis V., Pernici B., PlebaniP., (2006). Ontology-based methodology for e-service discovery. Information Systems, Volume31, Issues 4-5, pp 361-380.

• Bruzzone A.G., Cantice G., Morabito G., MursiaA., Sebastiani M., Tremori A. (2009) "CGF forNATO NEC C2 Maturity Model (N2C2M2)Evaluation", Proceedings of I/ITSEC2009,Orlando, November 30-December 4

• Bruzzone A., Giribone P., Mosca R. & Fassone B.(1999) "Project Management Tools: Simulation OnWeb Environment", Proceeding of Websim99, SanFrancisco, January 1999

• Bruzzone A., Revetria R. (2001) "Web BasedModeling as Support for Industrial Maintenance",Proceedings of FAIM2001, Dublin, July 16-182001

• Bruzzone A.G. (2009) "Serious Games forTraining and Education on Defense AgainstTerrorism", Invited Paper al NATO M&S GroupMSG-069 a Bruxelles sul tema "Serious Games forTraining and Education on Defense AgainstTerrorism", Invited Speech at NATO M&S Group- MSG-069, Bruxelles, Belgium October 15, 16

• Bruzzone A.G. (2006) "Distributed InteroperableSimulation for Training", Invited Presentation onSimulare Meeting, Athens, February 16-18

• Bruzzone A.G., (2007) "Generated Forces inInteroperable Simulations devoted to Training,Planning and Operation Support", KeynoteSpeaker at EuroSIW2007, Santa MargheritaLigure, Italy, June

• Casey M., Pahl C. (2003) “Web Components andthe Semantic Web”, Electronic Notes inTheoretical Computer Science 82 No. 5, URL:http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume82.html

• Curbera F., Mukhi N., and Weerawarana S.,(2001) “On the Emergence of a Web ServicesComponent Model”, Proceedings 6th Int,Workshop on Component- Oriented ProgrammingWCOP2001

Page 71

• DAML-S Coalition, (2002) “DAML-S: WebServices Description for the Semantic Web” In I.Horrocks and J. Hendler, editors, Proc. FirstInternational Semantic Web Conference ISWC2002,L NCS 2342, Springer-Verlag

• Dogac, A., Laleci, G., Kirbas S., Kabak Y., SinirS., Yildiz A., Gurcan Y. (2006) “Artemis:Deploying Semantically Enriched Web Services inthe Healthcare Domain”, Information Systems,Volume 31, Issue: 4-5, Pages: 321-339, ElsevierScience Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Evers M. (2008) “Virtual Worlds and Web 3.0:Examined, Compared, Analyzed”, Business WireResearch and Markets Report, Dublin. Source:MarketWatch.com

• Fensel D., Bussler, C., (2002). The Web ServiceModeling Framework WSMF. ElectronicCommerce Research and Applications, 1(2), 2002.

• Godoy D. and Amandi A., (2006) “Modeling userinterests by conceptual clustering”, InformationSystems, Volume 31 , 247 – 265, Issue 4, Specialissue: The semantic web and web services,Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Granlund R., Erik Berglund, Henrik Eriksson,(2000) “Designing web-based simulation forlearning”, Future Generation Computer Systems,Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 171-185

• Heflin J.D. (2001) “Towards the semantic web:knowledge representation in a dynamic, distributedenvironment”, Ph.D. Thesis, University ofMaryland, College Park

• Hsua C., Wub F. (2006) “Topic-specific crawlingon the Web with the measurements of therelevancy context graph”, Information Systems,volume 31, 232–246, Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Jutla D. N., Bodorik P. and Zhang Y. (2006)“PeCAN: An architecture for users’ privacy-awareelectronic commerce contexts on the semanticweb” Information Systems Volume 31, Issues 4-5,July 2006, Pages 295-320, The Semantic Web andWeb Services, Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Longo F., B.M. (2007), "Critical Issues andPotential of SCORM & HLA integration forSupporting Training Simulation Interoperability",Proceedings of EUROSIW2007, Santa Margherita,Italy, June.

• Massei M., Bocca E., B.E. (2006) "TrainingSimulation as Competitive Advantage for PolicyDefinition in Logistics Networks", Proceedings ofMSO2006, Gaborone, Botswana, September

• Matsuo Y., Mori J., Hamasaki M., (2007)“Polyphonet: An Advanced Social NetworkExtraction System from the Web” Web Semantics:

Science, Services and Agents on the World WideWeb 5, 262–27, Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford, UK

• Meirina C., Georgiy M. Levchuk, Sui Ruan,Krishna R. Pattipati, Robert L. Popp, (2006)“Normative framework and computational modelsfor simulating and assessing command and controlprocesses” Simulation Modelling Practice andTheory, Volume 14, Issue 4, May, Pages 454-479.

• Orvis K.L., Robert A. Wisher, Curtis J. Bonk,Tatana M. Olson (2002) “Communication patternsduring synchronous Web-based military training inproblem solving” Computers in Human Behavior,Volume 18, Issue 6, November 2002, Pages 783-795.

• Rao J., Kuengas P. and Matskin M. (2006)“Composition of Semantic Web Services usingLinear Logic Theorem Proving”, InformationSystems, Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 295-320, TheSemantic Web and Web Services, Elsevier ScienceLtd. Oxford, UK

• Sanchez E., “Fuzzy logic and the semantic web”,Febbraio 2006, Elsevier.

• Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T., (2006).The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE IntelligentSystems, May-June 2006, 96-101.

• Shannon V., (2006). A ‘more revolutionary’ web.The New York Times. Retrived June 4, 2010 fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/technology/23iht-web.html?_r=1

• Shu-hsien Liao, “Case-based decision supportsystem: Architecture for simulating militarycommand and control” European Journal ofoperational Research, Volume 123, Issue 3, 16June 2000, Pages 558-567

• Shu-Hsien Liao, Yen-Ping Ho, “knowledge-basedarchitecture for implementing collaborativeproblem-solving methods in military e-training”Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 35,Issue 3, October 2008, Pages 976-990.

• Waller J.C., Natalie Foster, (2000) “Training viathe web: a virtual instrument” Computers &Education, Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 161-167.

Page 72