Overview of the Unconventional Conflict Ontology

  • Dean S. HartleyIII
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


The Unconventional Conflict Ontology has been constructed using a set of real-world conflicts to provide a model of a generic unconventional conflict. Parts of this model/ontology are completely situation-independent. That is, they are “true” for any particular conflict. The word “true” is placed in quotations to emphasize that its meaning may differ from some uses. For example, the ontology contains an element for a non-combatant evacuation (NEO); however, this does not imply that all unconventional conflicts involve NEOs. It implies that if such a conflict involves a NEO, then that NEO will be related to other elements in the situation in the same manner that they are related in the ontology. This chapter provides an overview of the components of the ontology and their relationships.


  1. Department of State. (2016, April 19). Updated foreign assistance standardized program structure and definitions. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from Department of State:
  2. Department of State, O. (2005). Post-conflict reconstruction. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from
  3. Dziedzic, M., Sotirin, B., & Agoglia, J. (2008). Measuring progress in conflict environments (MPICE) – A metrics framework for assessing conflict transformation and stabilization. DTIC.Google Scholar
  4. Hartley, D. S. (2006a). Interim semi-static stability model. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from Hartley Consulting:
  5. Hartley, D. S. (2008). DIME/PMESII VV&A tool. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from Hartley Consulting:
  6. Hartley, D. S. (2010). Corruption in Afghanistan: Conceptual model. NDU corruption workshop. Washington, DC: National Defense University.Google Scholar
  7. Hartley, D. S. (2016). Ontologies. Retrieved May 19, 2016, from Hartley Consulting:
  8. Hartley, D. S. (2017). Unconventional conflict: A modeling perspective. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartley, D. S., & Lacy, L. W. (2011). Irregular Warfare (IW) metrics ontology final Report, TRAC-H-TR-13-020. Ft Leavenworth, KS: US Army TRAC.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, D. S., & Lacy, L. W. (2013a). Creating the foundations for modeling irregular warfare. In D. M. Nicholson & D. D. Schmorrow (Eds.), Advances in design for cross-cultural activities, part II (pp. 13–23). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hartley, D. S., & Lacy, L. W. (2013b). IW ontology final report. Ft Leavenworth, KS: US Army TRAC.Google Scholar
  12. Haskins, C. (2010, September–October). A practical approach to cultural insight. Military Review.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, B. C., & Sands, J. I. (1997). Doing windows: Non-traditional military responses to complex emergencies. Washington, DC: CCRP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillson, R., et al. (2009). Requirements for a government owned DIME/PMESII model suite. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense Modeling & Simulation Steering Committee.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, G. (2011). A taxonomy for HSCB research and operations. HSCB Focus 2011 conference, February 8–10, 2011. Chantilly, BA.Google Scholar
  16. Lacy, L. W. (2005). OWL: Representing information using the web ontology language. Victoria, BC: Trafford.Google Scholar
  17. Sun-Tzu. (1963). The art of war. (S. B. Griffith, Trans.) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. TRAC. (2009, January). IW decomposition analytic strategy: Overview briefing for IW WG. Ft Leavenworth, KS: TRAC.Google Scholar
  19. TRAC. (2010). Metrics v3.xls. Ft Leavenworth, KS: TRAC.Google Scholar
  20. Wikipedia. (2017c, July 29). Group (mathematics). Retrieved July 29, 2017, from Wikipedia:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean S. HartleyIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Hartley ConsultingOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations