220 research outputs found
A Generic Module System forWeb Rule Languages: Divide and Rule
An essential feature in practically usable programming languages is
the ability to encapsulate functionality in reusable modules. Modules make large
scale projects tractable by humans. For Web and Semantic Web programming,
many rule-based languages, e.g. XSLT, CSS, Xcerpt, SWRL, SPARQL, and RIF
Core, have evolved or are currently evolving. Rules are easy to comprehend
and specify, even for non-technical users, e.g. business managers, hence easing
the contributions to the Web. Unfortunately, those contributions are arguably
doomed to exist in isolation as most rule languages are conceived without modularity,
hence without an easy mechanism for integration and reuse. In this paper
a generic module system applicable to many rule languages is presented. We
demonstrate and apply our generic module system to a Datalog-like rule language,
close in spirit to RIF Core. The language is gently introduced along the
EU-Rent use case. Using the Reuseware Composition Framework, the module
system for a concrete language can be achieved almost for free, if it adheres to
the formal notions introduced in this paper
Engineering Resilient Space Systems
Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are
becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience
accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult,
harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that
limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or
toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards,
such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated
questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration,
that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful
without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return.
Science objectives will have to be revised âon the flyâ, with new data collection and navigation decisions
on short timescales.
Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain
unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the
Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to
remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller
spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the
job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking
mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations
without increasing risk or system complexity?
These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as
documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013â2022 (National Research
Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently
completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study:
1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform
science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail;
2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination
(essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its
own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid,
requiring response on short notice; and
3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances
on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and
faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and
landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that
dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system.
The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the
study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation
in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emergedâadaptation in the presence of
changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various waysâanomalies, disruptions,
discoveriesâbut they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid
assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of
interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is
resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions.
Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration,
namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an
important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including
2
other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study
period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the âproblem spaceâ as an organizing theme, and the
second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the âsolution spaceâ. In each workshop, focused discussions
and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers.
The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the
first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the
nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups,
each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second
workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were:
1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions
2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and
technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA
3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and
guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems
The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three
reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for
the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would
be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of
system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications,
and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending
these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories:
architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions.
The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think
deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience
capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the
study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions:
1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period,
the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the
scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these
missions.
2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable termsâproject cost, mission risk, and quality of
science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed
during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience
need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate
metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional
work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns.
3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space
systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and
research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more
beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, âsmartâ power grid control, cyber-physical
systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were
identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents
many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative
proposals and joint research as a result of the study.
4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating
disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space
systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the
3
risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of
conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing
complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a
unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in
the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate
approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F.
5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed
research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to
date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of
working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and
documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required
fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities.
Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more
resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development
and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with
resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by
enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations.
Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals.
Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systemsâthis study
provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process
Data Management for Dynamic Multimedia Analytics and Retrieval
Multimedia data in its various manifestations poses a unique challenge from a data storage and data management perspective, especially if search, analysis and analytics in large data corpora is considered. The inherently unstructured nature of the data itself and the curse of dimensionality that afflicts the representations we typically work with in its stead are cause for a broad range of issues that require sophisticated solutions at different levels. This has given rise to a huge corpus of research that puts focus on techniques that allow for effective and efficient multimedia search and exploration. Many of these contributions have led to an array of purpose-built, multimedia search systems.
However, recent progress in multimedia analytics and interactive multimedia retrieval, has demonstrated that several of the assumptions usually made for such multimedia search workloads do not hold once a session has a human user in the loop. Firstly, many of the required query operations cannot be expressed by mere similarity search and since the concrete requirement cannot always be anticipated, one needs a flexible and adaptable data management and query framework. Secondly, the widespread notion of staticity of data collections does not hold if one considers analytics workloads, whose purpose is to produce and store new insights and information. And finally, it is impossible even for an expert user to specify exactly how a data management system should produce and arrive at the desired outcomes of the potentially many different queries.
Guided by these shortcomings and motivated by the fact that similar questions have once been answered for structured data in classical database research, this Thesis presents three contributions that seek to mitigate the aforementioned issues. We present a query model that generalises the notion of proximity-based query operations and formalises the connection between those queries and high-dimensional indexing. We complement this by a cost-model that makes the often implicit trade-off between query execution speed and results quality transparent to the system and the user. And we describe a model for the transactional and durable maintenance of high-dimensional index structures.
All contributions are implemented in the open-source multimedia database system Cottontail DB, on top of which we present an evaluation that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed models. We conclude by discussing avenues for future research in the quest for converging the fields of databases on the one hand and (interactive) multimedia retrieval and analytics on the other
Engineering Automation for Reliable Software Interim Progress Report (10/01/2000 - 09/30/2001)
Prepared for: U.S. Army Research Office
P.O. Box 12211
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211The objective of our effort is to develop a scientific basis for producing reliable
software that is also flexible and cost effective for the DoD distributed software domain.
This objective addresses the long term goals of increasing the quality of service provided
by complex systems while reducing development risks, costs, and time. Our work focuses on
"wrap and glue" technology based on a domain specific distributed prototype model. The key
to making the proposed approach reliable, flexible, and cost-effective is the automatic
generation of glue and wrappers based on a designer's specification. The "wrap and glue"
approach allows system designers to concentrate on the difficult interoperability problems
and defines solutions in terms of deeper and more difficult interoperability issues, while
freeing designers from implementation details. Specific research areas for the proposed
effort include technology enabling rapid prototyping, inference for design checking,
automatic program generation, distributed real-time scheduling, wrapper and glue
technology, and reliability assessment and improvement. The proposed technology will be
integrated with past research results to enable a quantum leap forward in the state of the
art for rapid prototyping.U. S. Army Research Office P.O. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-22110473-MA-SPApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited
Proceedings of Monterey Workshop 2001 Engineering Automation for Sofware Intensive System Integration
The 2001 Monterey Workshop on Engineering Automation for Software Intensive System Integration was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Army Research Office and the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency. It is our pleasure to thank the workshop advisory and sponsors for their vision of a principled engineering solution for software and for their many-year tireless effort in supporting a series of workshops to bring everyone together.This workshop is the 8 in a series of International workshops. The workshop was held in Monterey Beach Hotel, Monterey, California during June 18-22, 2001. The general theme of the workshop has been to present and discuss research works that aims at increasing the practical impact of formal methods for software and systems engineering. The particular focus of this workshop was "Engineering Automation for Software Intensive System Integration". Previous workshops have been focused on issues including, "Real-time & Concurrent Systems", "Software Merging and Slicing", "Software Evolution", "Software Architecture", "Requirements Targeting Software" and "Modeling Software System Structures in a fastly moving scenario".Office of Naval ResearchAir Force Office of Scientific Research Army Research OfficeDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyApproved for public release, distribution unlimite
Data bases and data base systems related to NASA's Aerospace Program: A bibliography with indexes
This bibliography lists 641 reports, articles, and other documents introduced into the NASA scientific and technical information system during the period January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1982. The directory was compiled to assist in the location of numerical and factual data bases and data base handling and management systems
Engineering Resilient Space Systems
Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are
becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience
accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult,
harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that
limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or
toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards,
such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated
questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration,
that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful
without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return.
Science objectives will have to be revised âon the flyâ, with new data collection and navigation decisions
on short timescales.
Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain
unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the
Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to
remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller
spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the
job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking
mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations
without increasing risk or system complexity?
These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as
documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013â2022 (National Research
Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently
completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study:
1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform
science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail;
2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination
(essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its
own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid,
requiring response on short notice; and
3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances
on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and
faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and
landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that
dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system.
The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the
study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation
in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emergedâadaptation in the presence of
changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various waysâanomalies, disruptions,
discoveriesâbut they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid
assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of
interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is
resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions.
Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration,
namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an
important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including
2
other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study
period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the âproblem spaceâ as an organizing theme, and the
second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the âsolution spaceâ. In each workshop, focused discussions
and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers.
The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the
first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the
nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups,
each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second
workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were:
1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions
2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and
technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA
3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and
guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems
The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three
reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for
the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would
be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of
system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications,
and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending
these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories:
architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions.
The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think
deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience
capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the
study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions:
1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period,
the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the
scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these
missions.
2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable termsâproject cost, mission risk, and quality of
science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed
during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience
need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate
metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional
work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns.
3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space
systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and
research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more
beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, âsmartâ power grid control, cyber-physical
systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were
identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents
many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative
proposals and joint research as a result of the study.
4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating
disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space
systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the
3
risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of
conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing
complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a
unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in
the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate
approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F.
5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed
research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to
date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of
working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and
documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required
fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities.
Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more
resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development
and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with
resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by
enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations.
Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals.
Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systemsâthis study
provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process
The 1990 Goddard Conference on Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence
The papers presented at the 1990 Goddard Conference on Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence are given. The purpose of this annual conference is to provide a forum in which current research and development directed at space applications of artificial intelligence can be presented and discussed. The proceedings fall into the following areas: Planning and Scheduling, Fault Monitoring/Diagnosis, Image Processing and Machine Vision, Robotics/Intelligent Control, Development Methodologies, Information Management, and Knowledge Acquisition
- âŚ