Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...

Semantic Interoperability by Means
of Computer Languages
Ľubomír Dedera
Department of Informatics, Armed Forces Academy of Gen. M.R. Štefánik,
Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia, Lubomir.Dedera@aos.sk
Abstract: In this paper we introduce computer language syntax and semantic processing techniques
as a means to achieve semantic interoperability in the selected areas of command and control systems.
Specifically we focus on the topic of domain-specific languages in the area of military command and
control systems, where we present how separation of concrete and abstract syntax and semantics
can help design languages with multilingual support that are exploitable in integration of national
command and control systems and deployment in multinational environment.
Keywords: computer languages; domain-specific languages; syntax; semantics; command and control
system
I. Introduction
In order to bring the idea of computer languages (CLs) in command and
control (C2) systems closer, first let us look at probably the best known group
of CLs – “classical” programming languages.
The role of high-level programming languages (PLs) (like C, Java, Lisp, Prolog)
is widely known not only in the technical community. They play inevitable role
in the process of software development. A programming language is an artificial
computer language designated to express computations that can be performed by
a machine. PLs can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine,
to express algorithms precisely, or as a mode of human communication [1].
Most PLs describe computation in an imperative style, i.e. as a sequence of commands
and support object-oriented paradigm of programming (OOP). However,
there are PLs supporting declarative programming paradigms such as functional
(Lisp) or logical (Prolog) paradigms.
Most PLs belong to the group of general-purpose programming languages.
It means that they can be used to code software applications for many various application
domains. Typically they are Turing-complete; loosely speaking, according
to the Church-Turing Thesis it means that they are capable of describing solutions
of all algorithmically solvable problems.