Advertisement

The ISE Metamodel for Critical Infrastructures

  • Felix Flentge
  • Uwe Beyer
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 253)

The implementation-service-effect (ISE) metamodel is a general framework for modeling critical infrastructures that can integrate several different perspectives. The metamodel has a technical basis and also provides the abstractions needed for risk assessment and management of critical infrastructures in complex environments. ISE supports an iterative modeling approach that continuously refines models based on new information. By focusing on the services provided by critical infrastructures, the approach bridges the gap between the business and engineering views of critical infrastructures. The technical realization of services is described in the implementation layer of ISE; the effects of the successful (or unsuccessful) delivery of services are described in the effect layer. A sound mathematical foundation provides the basis for analyses ranging from topological evaluations of dependency structures to statistical analyses of simulation results obtained using agent-based models.

Keywords: Infrastructure modeling, interdependencies, ISE metamodel

Keywords

Dependency Graph Critical Infrastructure Topological Model Boolean Model Service Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Amin, Restructuring the electric enterprise: Simulating the evolution of the electric power industry with intelligent adaptive agents, in Electric Pricing in Transition, A. Faruqui and K. Eakin (Eds. ), Kluwer, Norwell, Massachusetts, pp. 51-64, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Baran, R. Sreenath and N. Mahajan, Extending EMTDC/PSCAD for simulating agent-based distributed applications, IEEE Power Engineering Review, vol. 22(12), pp. 52-54, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Barton and K. Stamber, An Agent-Based Microsimulation of Critical Infrastructure Systems, Technical Report SAND2000-0808C, Sandia Na- tional Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Casalicchio, R. Setola and S. Tucci, An overview of modeling and sim- ulation techniques for critical infrastructures, Proceedings of the Twelfth IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems, pp. 630-633, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Homeland Security, National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Washington, DC (www.dhs. gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP Overview.pdf ), 2006.
  6. [6]
    M. Dunn, Understanding critical information infrastructures: An elu- sive quest, in International CIIP Handbook 2006 -Volume II, M. Dunn and V. Mauer (Eds. ), Center for Security Studies, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, pp. 27-53, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Y. Haimes and P. Jiang, Leontief-based model of risk in complex intercon- nected infrastructures, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, vol. 7(1), pp. 1-12, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. Hopkinson, X. Wang, R. Giovanini, J. Thorp, K. Birman and D. Coury, EPOCHS: A platform for agent-based electric power and communication simulation built from commercial off-the-shelf components, IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 21(2), pp. 548-558, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Panzieri, R. Setola and G. Ulivi, An agent-based simulator for criti- cal interdependent infrastructures, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Critical Infrastructures, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Reed, S. Chang and T. McDaniels, Modeling of infrastructure interdependencies, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Critical Infrastructures, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Rinaldi, J. Peerenboom and T. Kelly, Identifying, understanding and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE Control Systems, vol. 21(6), pp. 11-25, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Saunders, A dynamic risk model for information technology security in a critical infrastructure environment, in Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources X, Y. Haimes, D. Mosher and E. Stakhiv (Eds. ), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 23-39, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Schoenwald, D. Barton and M. Ehlen, An agent-based simulation laboratory for economics and infrastructure interdependency, Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1295-1300, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Tolone, D. Wilson, A. Raja, W. Xiang, H. Hao, S. Phelps and E. Johnson, Critical infrastructure integration modeling and simulation, in Intelligence and Security Informatics (LNCS 3073), H. Chen, R. Moore, D. Zeng and J. Leavitt (Eds. ), Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 214-225, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    W. Tolone, D. Wilson, A. Raja, W. Xiang and E. Johnson, Applying Cougaar to integrated critical infrastructure modeling and simulation, Proceedings of the First Open Cougaar Conference, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Wolthusen, GIS-based command and control infrastructure for critical infrastructure protection, Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Critical Infrastructure Protection, pp. 40-47, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Flentge
    • 1
  • Uwe Beyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Multimodal Software EngineeringDarmstadt University of TechnologyGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information SystemsGermany

Personalised recommendations