Advertisement

Ontologies in Aeronautics

  • Carlos C. InsaurraldeEmail author
  • Erik Blasch
Chapter

Abstract

Avionics systems are getting increasingly sophisticated, airspaces are densely occupied, and aircraft are desired to fly in more adverse weather conditions. These conditions increase the complexity of Air Traffic Management (ATM) as aviators and airspace controllers struggle to maintain safety while cross-checking multisource information, including information from Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) . Hence, future ATM decision-support systems are required not only to be autonomous and reliable complex decision-making processes with minimal human intervention, but also must be able to deal with UAS ATM (UTM). This chapter presents the implementation of Ontologies for NextGen Avionics Systems (ONAS) for UTM. The ONAS approach consists of an operation framework and an ontology-based tool, called Avionics Analytics Ontology (AAO), to support decision-making in advanced ATM/UTM systems. The AAO entails a cognitive ATM/UTM architecture for avionics analytics where an ontological database captures information related to weather, flights, and airspace. The AAO-based decision-making process supports human Situation AWareness (SAW) as well as machine Situation Assessment (SA). The ONAS approach presented is intended to be initially used in civil aviation. A use case along with two different scenarios is presented for an ATM/UTM system. The scenarios represent realistic flight situations (based on dataset from a flight tracking service) where the ATM/UTM decisions made are supported by the AAO.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Blasch, P. Paces, P. Kostek, K. Kramer, Summary of avionics technologies. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 30(9), 6–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Gaska, C. Watkins, Y. Chen, Integrated moduLar avioincs - past, present, and future. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 30(9), 12–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Helfrick, The centennial of avioncs: our 100-year trek to performancebased navigation. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 30(9), 36–45 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Leuchter et al., Investigation of avionics power switch loading versus aircraft electromagnetic compatability. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 30(9), 24–34 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. A. Association, Federal Aviation Association Next Generation (NextGen) (2017), https://www.faa.gov/nextgen
  6. 6.
    E. Commission, Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) (2017), http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/sesar/index_en.htm
  7. 7.
    R.M. Keller et al., Semenatic representation and scale-up of integrated air traffic management data, in International Workshop on Semantic Big Data (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. AB, Flightradar24 Live Air Traffic (2006), https://www.flightradar24.com
  9. 9.
    E. Blasch, Enhanced air operations using JView for an air-ground fused situation awareness UDOP, in AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Blasch, Ontologies for NextGen avionics systems, in AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Blasch, M. Belanger, Agile battle management efficiency for command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I). Proc. SPIE 9842 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    C. Flachberger et al., Collaboration in crisis management - learning from the transportation domain, in Future Security (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Zhao et al., The research synopsis about SWIM in china, in IEEE 12th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized System (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Burgstaller et al., AIRM-based, fine-grained semantic filtering of notices to airmen, in Integrated Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Koelle, A. Tarter, Towards a distributed situation management capability for SESAR and NEXTGEN, in Integrated Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Koelle, W. Strijland, Semantic driven security assurance for system engineering in SESAR/NextGen, in Integrated Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.R. Boyd, The Essence of Winning and Losing (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Blasch, D.A. Lambert, P. Valin, M.M. Kokar, J. Llinas, S. Das, C.-Y. Chong, E. Shahbazian, High level information fusion (HLIF) survey of models, issues, and grand challenges. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 27(9), 4–20 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Blasch, A. Steinberg, S. Das, J. Llinas, C.-Y. Chong, O. Kessler, E. Waltz, F. White., Revisiting the JDL model for information Exploitation, in International Conference on Information Fusion (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. So, L. Sonenberg., Situation awareness in intelligent agents: foundations for a theory of proactive agent behavior, in IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (2004), pp. 86–92Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. Blasch, S. Plano, Level 5: user refinement to aid the fusion process. Proc. SPIE 5099 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Blasch, I. Kadar, K. Hintz, J. Biermann, C.C.S. Das, Resource management coordination with Level 2/3 fusion issues and challenges. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 23(3), 32–46 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M.C. Dorneich et al., Evaluation of information quality and automation visibility in information automation on the flight deck, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2015), pp. 284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Rushby, Evaluation of information quality and automation visibility in Information automation on the flight deck, in International Conference on Distributed Computing and Internet Technology (ICDCIT), vol. 9581 (2016), pp. 19–29Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. Blasch, Ontological issues in higher levels of information fusion: user refinement of the fusion process, in International Conference on Info Fusion (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P.C.G. Costa et al., Towards unbiased evaluation of uncertainty reasoning: the URREF ontology, in International Conference on Info Fusion (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Schreiber et al., Knowledge Engineering and Management - The CommonKADS Methodology (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Baader, et al. (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook - Theory, Implementation and Applications (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    G.D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics. Tech. report, AAAI Technical Report WS-96-05. 1996Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. University, The Protégé Wiki (2017), http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Main_Page
  32. 32.
    C.C. Insaurralde, E. Blasch., Ontological knowledge representation for avionics decision-making support, in AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C.C. Insaurralde, E. Blasch., Veracity metrics for ontological decision- making support in avionics analytics, in AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    T. Lukoianova, V. Rubin., Veracity roadmap: is big data objective, truthful and credible? in Advances in Classification Research Online (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Z. Ding et al., BayesOWL: Uncertainty Modelling in Semantic Web Ontologies, in Soft Computing in Ontologies and Semantic Web, vol. 204 (2006) pp. 3–29Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    L. Snidaro, J.G. Herrero, J. Llinas, E. Blasch (eds.), Context-Enhanced Information Fusion: Boosting Real-World Performance with Domain Knowledge (Springer, Berlin, 2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teesside UniversityMiddlesbroughUK
  2. 2.US Air Force Research LabRomeUSA

Personalised recommendations