Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ... Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
214 Military Communications and Information Technology... Figure 2. Component architecture of the CL subsystem III. Example of utilization of abstract and concrete syntax and semantics To demonstrate the concepts of DSLs with multilingual support in the environment of C2 systems, let us consider a simple DSL, in which we want to express the following (abstract) concepts: • Sequence of commands, where each command could be either move or destroy command; • Move command – instructing a particular object to move its location to particular coordinates; • Destroy command – instructing a particular weapon system to destroy a target at particular coordinates; • An object could be either a weapon system or a (military) unit; • Unit, weapon system and coordinates could be lexical elements (depicted in bold). The domain model of the language (Fig. 3) can be expressed using a UML class diagram with generalization and aggregation relationships. Consecutively the abstract syntax of the language can be expressed with a CFG with the following productions (including semantic action symbols – their identifiers start with #): 1. → 2. → ε 3. → 4. → 5. → #process_move 6. → #process_destroy 7. → 8. → 9. → unit #process_unit
Chapter 3: Information Technology for Interoperability and Decision... 215 10. → weapon_system #process_weapon_system 11. → coordinates #process_coordinates Figure 3. Domain model of the DSL (Source: Author) Now let us turn to the concrete syntaxes. In Language Representation 1 (e.g. U.S.) we require: • Commands finished with semicolons (;); • Concrete syntax of the move command is move to ; • Concrete syntax of the destroy command is destroy by . These concrete language requirements can be fulfilled using the following productions: 1. → ; 5. → move to #process_move 6. → destroy by #process_destroy
- Page 164 and 165: 164 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 166 and 167: 166 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 168 and 169: 168 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 170 and 171: 170 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 172 and 173: 172 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 174 and 175: 174 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 176 and 177: 176 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 178 and 179: 178 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 180 and 181: 180 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 182 and 183: 182 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 184 and 185: 184 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 186 and 187: 186 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 188 and 189: 188 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 190 and 191: 190 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 192 and 193: 192 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 194 and 195: 194 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 196 and 197: 196 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 199: Chapter 3 Information Technology fo
- Page 202 and 203: 202 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 204 and 205: 204 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 206 and 207: 206 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 208 and 209: 208 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 210 and 211: 210 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 212 and 213: 212 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 216 and 217: 216 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 218 and 219: 218 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 220 and 221: 220 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 222 and 223: 222 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 224 and 225: 224 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 226 and 227: 226 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 228 and 229: 228 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 230 and 231: 230 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 232 and 233: 232 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 234 and 235: 234 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 236 and 237: 236 Military Communications and Inf
- Page 239 and 240: Run-Time Ontology on the Basis of E
- Page 241 and 242: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 243 and 244: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 245 and 246: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 247 and 248: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 249 and 250: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 251 and 252: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 253 and 254: A Robust and Scalable Peer-to-Peer
- Page 255 and 256: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 257 and 258: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 259 and 260: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 261 and 262: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
- Page 263 and 264: Chapter 3: Information Technology f
Chapter 3: <strong>Information</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> for Interoperability <strong>and</strong> Decision...<br />
215<br />
10. → weapon_system #process_weapon_system<br />
11. → coordinates #process_coordinates<br />
Figure 3. Domain model of the DSL (Source: Author)<br />
Now let us turn to the concrete syntaxes. In Language Representation 1<br />
(e.g. U.S.) we require:<br />
• Comm<strong>and</strong>s finished with semicolons (;);<br />
• Concrete syntax of the move comm<strong>and</strong> is move to ;<br />
• Concrete syntax of the destroy comm<strong>and</strong> is destroy by<br />
.<br />
These concrete language requirements can be fulfilled using the following<br />
productions:<br />
1. → ; <br />
5. → move to #process_move<br />
6. → destroy by <br />
#process_destroy