Workkow Models of the Air Campaign Planning Process 1 Contents 2 1 Background and Motivation

The aim of this document is to provide an overview of the models used to develop a workkow model of the Air Campaign Planning (acp) process. The models were used by the O-Plan project to develop a demonstrator of the O-Plan system as a \planning to plan" aid for the agenda of the control panel of Air Campaign Planning Tool (acpt). The role of O-Plan was to allow users to identify tool(s) e.g. editors, viewers, systems and agents to address a speciic activity in the acp process. The plans being developed were at the process level at which the Master Air Attack Plan (maap) and Air Tasking Order (ato) are being developed and not at the level of individual targets and missions. The identiication of an appropriate tool was accomplished by either matching the acp activity directly with a tool's capability of by decomposing the activity into lower level sub-activities until a match can be found. In common with other representations emerging from arpi technologies and acp modellers at various levels it is envisaged that acp tasks be described in the following form. Noun Phrase(s): describes what the activity acts upon, e.g. document, tool, etc. Qualiier(s): describes additional information which restricts the tool in performing its task. Examples from the acp domain include, perform/weaponeering assessment/broad prioritise/target-list/ publish/ato/ Full details of the model used to describe the verbs and noun phrases cam be found in ?, ?] respectively. The structure of the remainder of the report is as follows. Section ?? describes the models which were originally used as the basis for the work ow model and reasons why they inadequate for the purpose and Section ?? describes the workkow models developed. A series of models of the acp process have been produced on the isat project using the Com-monKADS and idef-0 modelling methodologies. They have proved useful in providing background information and brieeng materials on the acp process to members of the arpi. However, due to the modelling restrictions of these two methodologies information needed to truely re-ect the way in which acp process was being carried out was missing. In particular information Background and Motivation 3 concerning the actual relationships between the start and nish of activities could not be represented. For example, both methodologies require activities to be linked from the end of one activity to the start of another. However, in the acp process there are numerous …