KR100702575B1 - System of measuring/testing interoperability among defense information systems based on computer aided interview - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to an evaluation and verification method, and more particularly, to an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems.

The interoperability evaluation / validation system between the electronic questionnaire-based defense information system according to the present invention is mutually associated with a master server including an evaluation master querying interoperability and a test master performing a test according to a test scenario for evaluation of the evaluation master. And a client performing a response to a questionnaire about the interoperability of the defense information system generated by the slave server of the defense information system in which the application program for measuring the operational capability is installed and the evaluation master.

Interoperability, Evaluation, Verification, Defense Information System, Electronic Survey

Description

Interoperability Evaluation / Verification System between Defense Information System based on Electronic Questionnaire {SYSTEM OF MEASURING / TESTING INTEROPERABILITY AMONG DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS BASED ON COMPUTER AIDED INTERVIEW}

1 is a diagram illustrating a system for implementing an interoperability evaluation and verification method between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

2 is a diagram illustrating a module for checking interoperability in a system for implementing an interoperability evaluation and verification method among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems according to the present invention.

Figure 3 shows a tree structured implementation options used in the interoperability evaluation and verification system between electronic survey-based defense information system according to the present invention.

4 illustrates a method of expanding a tree while avoiding duplication of a structured tree of implementation options used in an interoperability evaluation and verification system among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems according to the present invention.

FIG. 5 illustrates a spherical option tree in which the tree of FIG. 3 is expanded using a method of expanding the tree while avoiding duplication of FIG. 4 in the implementation option tree of FIG.

FIG. 6 illustrates a corresponding query in the implementation option tree of FIG. 5 to explain that a specific implementation option tree is determined according to a query response result.

FIG. 7A is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 2 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

7B is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 3 in an interoperability evaluation / validation system between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

7C is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 4 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among defense information systems based on an electronic survey according to the present invention.

7d is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 5 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

8 is a flowchart illustrating a method for evaluating and verifying interoperability between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

The present invention relates to an evaluation and verification method, and more particularly, to an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems.

The interoperability assessment between defense information systems is similar to the existing interoperability testing in that it evaluates the interaction between a number of different networked systems, but there are two differences.

1. Interoperability standard member

The interoperability test in the private sector focuses on compatibility testing between various products from different companies that implement this standard based on specific standards. Therefore, it is based on a standard conformance test. Defense Information Systems, on the other hand, do not interoperate based on specific standards. In general, each defense information system establishes and operates a separate database with a separate meaning, and interoperates by transferring the data when there is data needed by other systems among the constructed data.

2. Importance of procedures and infrastructure

Defense information systems often impose restrictions on interoperability procedures and communication infrastructure due to security issues. That is, in case of transferring data owned by the information system to another system, the procedure related to the data security and the infrastructure (or media) for the transmission are important issues.

Accordingly, the ROK military defines a separate guideline for evaluating interoperability between defense information systems and measures interoperability.

In other words, the US and ROK military have used computer-aided interviews mainly to measure interoperability between defense information systems.

The query evaluation technique is a technique to identify interoperability-related technologies, standards, and products adopted by each defense information system through a question / answer process based on previously prepared questions and then measure the level of interoperability.

Interoperability assessment based on Q & A is widely used because it is easy to measure interoperability because it can easily understand the interoperability procedures, applications, infrastructure, and data provided by the defense information system. There are problems such as gaps.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION An object of the present invention for solving the above problems is to provide a system capable of measuring interoperability between defense information systems by means of an electronic questionnaire by means of an information system interoperability level LISI and confirming through testing.

The interoperability evaluation and verification system between the electronic questionnaire-based defense information system according to the present invention for solving the above problems is a test for performing the test according to the evaluation master to query the interoperability and the evaluation scenario of the evaluation master A master server including a master; A slave server of the defense information system, in which an application program for measuring interoperability is installed; And a client performing a response to the questionnaire relating to the interoperability of the defense information system generated by the evaluation master.

Here, the above-described evaluation master may include a user interface for an interface between the client and the evaluation master; And an interoperability evaluation engine providing a function for evaluating the defense information system interoperability.

Here, the above-described interoperability evaluation engine may include an interoperable query processor for submitting a query to a defense information system client using an interoperable questionnaire and collecting a response thereto; An interoperability profile generation module that generates a profile based on the responses collected by the interoperable query processor; A LISI data manager for managing fixed data such as a LISI model, an implementation option, and a threshold rule table; An interoperability level evaluator evaluating an interoperability level based on the question and answer result; And a LISI evaluation output generator for generating various additional outputs such as an overlay and a matrix by using the evaluation result.

Here, the above-described test master may include a user interface for an interface between the client and the test master; A test scenario combination tool for combining test scenarios based on interface information between systems among interoperability test information extracted through the slave server, and generating scenarios suitable for levels based on test cases for each level; A concurrency controller which allocates the test scenarios combined by the test scenario combination tool to slave servers; And a test log analyzer for determining interoperability between systems based on test results collected by the slave server.

Here, the slave server may include: a test agent in charge of communication with the test master, receiving a request from the test master to operate the corresponding module, and transmitting an operation result to the test master; An information system analysis tool for extracting interoperable test information by analyzing a standard or a code of a test target information system; It is preferable to include a; test engine for testing the test target information system.

The test engine described above may include: a test execution engine configured to perform an interoperability test between systems using test scenarios and test data generated by the test master; A data generation engine which generates test data to be applied according to a test scenario and extracts an information system analysis result when generating test data; It is preferable to include a monitoring engine for collecting and extracting information that can determine the success of the interoperability by monitoring the internal state of the information system during the test execution.

Here, it is preferable to further include a repository for managing various information and data generated during the interoperability test process between systems.

Here, the storage described above is preferably a database that can be extracted in XML (eXtensible Markup Language).

Here, it is preferable to include any one or more of the above-described interoperability query, LISI model, LISI evaluation output, threshold rule table, implementation option set, or test output.

In this case, the test output described above may include at least one of interoperability test information, test scenario, test data, test Oracle, test driver, or test performance result.

In this case, the above-described interoperability questionnaire is preferably written based on a set of implementation options.

Here, the above-described implementation option is preferably a tree structure including a hierarchy of element level, service level, standard level and product level.

Here, the above-mentioned tree is preferably a hierarchical structure of the balance tree.

In addition, the interoperability evaluation / verification method between the electronic survey-based defense information system according to the present invention comprises the steps of: (a) building a set of implementation options in the master server to include implementation options used in various defense information systems; (b) constructing a query for interoperability evaluation on a master server based on the set of implementation options; (c) the master server querying the defense information system client using a query; (d) the master server creating a profile based on the previous response; (e) the master server measuring the potential level based on the profile; (f) the master server performing a test using a test scenario at a latent level; (g) determining the operation level by synthesizing the results of the previous step; and characterized in that it comprises a.

Here, it is preferable that the above-described set of implementation options satisfy the characteristics of completeness, structuring, and maintainability.

Specific details of other embodiments are included in the detailed description and the drawings.

Advantages and features of the present invention, and methods for achieving them will be apparent with reference to the embodiments described below in detail in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments disclosed below, but may be embodied in various different forms, and the present embodiments merely make the disclosure of the present invention complete, and those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention belongs. It is provided to fully inform the person having the scope of the invention, which is defined only by the scope of the claims. Like reference numerals refer to like elements throughout.

Hereinafter, exemplary embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

1 is a diagram illustrating a system for implementing an interoperability evaluation and verification method between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the system for implementing the interoperability evaluation and verification method between the electronic questionnaire based defense information system according to the present invention is the test master server 110, the test slave server (120a, 120b), the interoperability is verified Network 130 and defense information system client 140.

Here, the test slave servers 120a and 120b may add test slave servers 120a and 120b to measure the interoperability between the test slave servers 120a and 120b. Interoperability between 120a and 120b will be described.

The interoperability profile is created by evaluating the response of the defense information system client 140 to the interoperability questionnaire based on the set of implementation options, and the interoperability level between the test slave servers 120a and 120b is measured by the created profile. The interoperability between the test slave servers 120a and 120b based on the test scenario of the test master server 110 is verified by using the network 130 having the interoperability verified through the test.

Here, the description of the module for measuring interoperability and testing will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2.

2 is a diagram illustrating a module for checking interoperability in a system for implementing an interoperability evaluation and verification method among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the interoperability in the system for implementing the interoperability evaluation and verification method between the electronic questionnaire based defense information system according to the present invention, the module for testing is the evaluation master 210, the test master 220 ), The storage 230, the first test slave 240, the second test slave 250, and the interoperable network 260.

<Configuration>

The assessment master 210 includes a user interface 211 for the assessment master 210 and an interoperability assessment engine 212.

Here, the interoperability evaluation engine 212 includes an interoperable query processor 212a, an interoperability profile generation module 212b, a LISI data manager 212c, an interoperability level evaluator 212d, and an LISI evaluation output generator 212e. It includes.

The test master 220 includes a user interface 221 for the test master 220, a test scenario combination tool 222, a concurrency controller 223, a test log analyzer 224, and a test output repository 225.

The first test slave 240 includes a test agent 241, an information system analysis tool 242, and a test engine 243.

Here, the test engine 243 includes a test execution engine 243a, a data generation engine 243b, and a monitoring engine 243c.

In the same structure, the second test slave 250 includes a test agent 251, an information system analysis tool 252, and a test engine 253.

Here, the test engine 253 includes a test execution engine (not shown), a data generation engine (not shown), and a monitoring engine (not shown).

<Function>

The user interface 211 for the evaluation master 210 provides an interface for an evaluation subject to proceed with an electronic survey using a web browser.

The interoperability evaluation engine 212 provides a defense information system interoperability evaluation function.

The interoperable query processor 212a submits the query to the defense information system client using the interoperable questionnaire, and collects a response.

The interoperability profile generation module 212b generates a profile based on the responses collected by the interoperable query processor 212a.

The LISI data manager 212c manages fixed data such as a LISI model, an implementation option, and a threshold rule table.

The interoperability level evaluator 212d evaluates the level of interoperability based on the result of the question and answer.

The LISI evaluation output generator 212e generates various additional outputs such as an overlay and a matrix by using the evaluation result.

The user interface 221 for the test master 220 provides a graphical interface to the interoperability test tool operator.

The test scenario combination tool 222 performs a test scenario based on interface information between systems among interoperability test information extracted through the information system analysis tools 242 and 252 in the first and second test slaves 240 and 250. And create scenarios that match the level based on the level's test cases.

The concurrency controller 223 divides the test scenarios combined by the test scenario combination tool 222 into the first and second test slaves 240 and 250.

The test log analyzer 224 determines interoperability between systems based on test results collected by the monitoring engines 243c in the first and second test slaves 240, 250.

The repository 230 is a database for managing various information and data generated during the interoperability testing process between systems, but is configured in XML (eXtensible Markup Language) in consideration of scalability because it is likely to be expanded in the future.

The test agent 241 is responsible for communication with the test master 220, receives a request from the test master 220, operates the corresponding module, and transmits the operation result to the test master 220 again.

The information system analysis tool 242 is a tool for extracting interoperability test information by analyzing a standard or a code of a test target information system.

Here, the extracted information is an interface between defense information systems, a shared data structure between systems, interoperability evaluation information, and the like.

The test execution engine 243a is an engine that performs an interoperability test between systems using test scenarios and test data generated by the test master 220, and uses a test driver to perform a test.

The data generation engine 243b generates test data to be applied according to the test scenario, and the shared data structure information between systems is used among the interoperability test information extracted as a result of analyzing the information system when generating the test data.

The monitoring engine 243c collects information to determine whether the interoperability is successful by monitoring the internal state of the information system during the test, and utilizes the interoperability evaluation information extracted from the information system analysis tool.

<Description>

Currently, guidance for evaluating interoperability among defense information systems is based on the Level of Information System Interoperability (LISI).

LISI breaks down the level of interoperability among defense information systems into six levels, each of which includes interoperability procedures (P), applications (A), infrastructure (I), and data (D). Define the requirements of the four aspects of

Thus, interoperability assessments among defense information systems are made by measuring whether interoperability procedures, applications, infrastructure, and data meet requirements.

Here, Table 1 shows the LISI 97 capability model.

Evaluation master 210 is first performed to perform a query evaluation that can evaluate the interoperability between defense information systems based on the LISI model.

The evaluation master 210 references the LISI data manager 212c to a set of implementation options that make up a broad set by examining the technologies, standards, or products associated with the interoperability of the information system.

Here, the LISI data manager 212c manages the implementation options by structuring them to be easily added, deleted, and changed, and the description of structuring the implementation options in a table or tree form will be described with reference to FIG. 3, and in FIG. 4. A method of adding an implementation option tree will be described, and an example of adding three implementation options will be described with reference to FIG. 5.

Here, Table 2 shows a table of implementation option sets.

Based on the above-described set of implementation options, a questionnaire is constructed to ask which technologies, standards, and products are adopted by the evaluation target defense information system, and a description of the questionnaire is described in FIG. 6.

The interoperable query processor 212a generates a query through the previously created implementation option, asks an information system developer or operator a question about interoperability, and receives a response.

By analyzing the response from the information system developer or operator in the interoperable query processor 212a, the interoperability level is evaluated by the interoperability level evaluator 212d, and the profile of the previously evaluated interoperability profile is generated. Generated in module 212b.

Also, the repository 230 stores data about the profile generated above, interoperability questionnaire, LISI model, LISI evaluation output, threshold rule table, implementation option set, and the like.

After the questionnaire for evaluating interoperability with the defense information system is evaluated, a process of confirming through a test is performed.

That is, the first and second test slaves 240 and 250 are respectively installed in the two information systems that are the interoperability test targets, and the test master 220 is installed in a separate server.

The test master 220 controls the first and second test slaves 240 and 250 to control the entire test process, and the first and second test slaves 240 and 250 control the test master 220. Analyze interoperable test information systems, conduct test cases, and monitor the results.

All outputs produced during the testing process are managed centrally in the storage 230.

Here, the test outputs are shown in Table 3 below.

Here, a test regarding interoperability is described with reference to FIGS. 7A to 7D.

Figure 3 shows a tree structured implementation options used in the interoperability evaluation and verification system between electronic survey-based defense information system according to the present invention.

As shown, the tree structured the implementation options used in the interoperability evaluation and verification system between the electronic questionnaire-based defense information system according to the present invention is a property level, service level, standard level (Standard) level) and product level.

A tree is a graph with directional, acyclic, connected, and single parental characteristics. The following characteristics exist when using a tree to structure a set of implementation options.

First, there is a containment relationship among the items included in the implementation option set. Second, a balanced tree is used to express positive information as a tree. Third, if the implementation options are duplicated, it is difficult to manage them consistently. Lose.

In other words, in order to be efficient when expressing a large amount of information using a tree, the balance of the tree is important, so the hierarchy as shown in the case of expressing a set of implementation options using a tree structure inclusion relationship is shown. It is preferable to have.

In other words, if the hierarchical structure of the implementation option tree is divided into elements, services, standards, and products, duplication of implementation options does not occur.

However, this classification limits the hierarchy of implementation option trees to four levels, which is not sufficient to classify all implementation options.

For this reason, there is a case where an additional layer needs to be introduced into the implementation option set like the platform layer, and the additional layer sometimes causes redundancy or not.

In addition, consideration should be given to whether additional layers are applied to all elements.

In order to avoid such duplication, a solution according to whether or not to cause duplication of implementation options of the layer to be added and all implementation options is described in FIG. 4.

4 illustrates a method of expanding a tree while avoiding duplication of a structured tree of implementation options used in an interoperability evaluation and verification system among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the method of extending the tree while avoiding duplication of the tree structured implementation options used in the interoperability evaluation and verification system between the electronic questionnaire-based defense information system according to the present invention checks whether it will cause a repetition. (S410).

If it does not cause the increase according to the test result, it is checked whether the application to the entire tree (S420).

Here, if it does not cause duplication and does not apply to the entire tree, adds a new layer to only the necessary subtrees while breaking the balance of the implementation option tree (S440), and if it is applied to the entire tree without causing duplication. In step S430, a new layer is added without breaking the balance of the implementation option tree.

According to the test result, if the increase is caused, it is checked whether it is applied to the entire tree (S450).

Here, if it causes duplication and does not apply to the entire tree, add a property field to the lowest implementation option of the corresponding subtree (S470), and if it causes duplication and applies to the entire tree, to all the lowest implementation options. Add a characteristic field (S460).

Here, in case of adding three layers, first, the platform layer is used to classify which platform each product operates on, and second, the product version layer is used to express which versions are currently released for each product. In the case of adding a hierarchical layer for classifying and a third classifying layer according to which functions of FTP products are supported as an FTP classification layer, as shown in FIG. 5.

That is, the above three layers have different characteristics. The platform layer causes duplication of implementation options and can be applied to the entire tree. The version hierarchy of the product, on the other hand, does not cause duplication and can be applied to the entire tree. In addition, the FTP classification layer does not cause duplication but is applicable only to subtrees of the FTP standard. Therefore, the above three layers are reflected in the implementation option tree by the method shown in FIG. These results are shown in FIG.

FIG. 5 illustrates a spherical option tree in which the tree of FIG. 3 is expanded using a method of expanding the tree while avoiding duplication of FIG. 4 in the implementation option tree of FIG.

As shown, when looking at the spherical options tree, the platform information is attached to each product node of the tree separately rather than being added to a new hierarchy of the tree.

This separately attached information is called a property field, and this property field should be examined as a query item in the query.

In other words, if the user replied that they built an information system using the Voyager FTP product, they should ask what the current platform is.

This is because the platform property field is attached to the node that represents Voyager FTP.

In addition, there are classification criteria added as formal hierarchies rather than attribute fields.

First, the version layer added to the lowest node corresponds to all products and does not cause any duplication of implementation options, so it is added as a new layer, and this layer corresponds to all subtrees of the tree, so it does not break the balance.

On the other hand, the layer added after the standard layer is only applicable to the FTP standard, so the layer is added only to the subtree representing the FTP standard, which results in a balance.

FIG. 6 illustrates a corresponding query in the implementation option tree of FIG. 5 to explain that a specific implementation option tree is determined according to a query response result.

As shown, a query may be created for each node in the implementation options tree to create a query.

That is, three queries are written, showing the classification term selection query, the characteristic field query, and the implementation option selection query.

In classification selection query, there are three nodes as data access, comm, and print as the lower nodes of application program A. In the end, what kind of service does "Q) *** system provide in classification selection query? ? "Is a question that can be selected from among (1) data access, (2) comm., And (3) print.

In the same way, the feature field query and the implementation option selection query are automatically processed to create a query.

FIG. 7A is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 2 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the testing model for level 2 should satisfy the ability to exchange homogeneous data.

The exchange of homogeneous data means that two defense information systems can send and receive data in a predetermined format.

Therefore, FTP, e-mail, and the like, which are applications for file transfer, are used.

Data is shared on a file-by-file basis and each information system has a module for file transfer.

Here, the interoperability level 2 test test case is as follows.

In other words, Table 4 is a test case for interoperability level 2. The test case focuses on the interface test and the file format compatibility test for the file transmission / reception module in the two information systems.

7B is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 3 in an interoperability evaluation / validation system between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the testing model for level 3 requires the ability to exchange heterogeneous data.

The heterogeneous data refers to a case where a separate meaning is given in the data.

That is, it should be able to give meaning to data using separate metadata such as hypertext and XML.

In this case, interoperability requires that the meaning of the data generated by one information system be interpreted or translated by the other information system.

Therefore, a metadata interpretation module and a data conversion module are required.

In general, the data conversion module only needs to be located in one of two information systems.

Here, the interoperability level 3 test test case is as follows.

In other words, Table 5 is a test case for Interoperability Level 3. The two information systems should be able to share data with different formats and meanings.

For this purpose, metadata is used and a program for converting the file format when necessary is used.

At level 3, the test focuses on data interpretation and transformation capabilities.

7C is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 4 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among defense information systems based on an electronic survey according to the present invention.

As shown, the testing model for level 3 should be able to share data through a common DB.

It means that the information system can access the DB of other information systems and access, interpret or transform the data.

Prior to this, the process of requesting and granting a DB connection between two information systems should be performed. However, this process is classified as P element among PAID elements, so it is assumed that the user has DB access authority.

Here, the interoperability level 4 test test case is as follows.

In other words, Table 6 focuses on remote DB access as a test case for interoperability level 4.

The test case for Interoperability Level 4 described requires an understanding of the DB schema and the ability to convert data types as needed to access and utilize DB data stored in one information system from another.

7d is a block diagram illustrating a testing model for interoperability level 5 in an interoperability evaluation / verification system among electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the testing model for level 5 requires that data and applications can be shared simultaneously in heterogeneous environments.

Data should be managed in the form of integrated DB and freely accessible to all authorized information systems.

If the information system needs specific data in the DB, an application program that can interpret and utilize the data should be automatically installed and plugged in.

Each information system will have a plug-in application program for the required data.

Here, the interoperability level 5 test test case is as follows.

That is, Table 7 shows a test for interoperability level 5. The two information systems can exchange data freely through a shared DB.

If interoperability level 5 is met, both information systems can exchange data freely through a shared database.

At this time, shared DB access module and data utilization module should be automatically installed and plugged in for the first time.

At level 5, the installed plug-in interprets the meaning of the data itself, so no separate data interpretation or conversion module is required.

8 is a flowchart illustrating a method for evaluating and verifying interoperability between electronic survey-based defense information systems according to the present invention.

As shown, the interoperability evaluation and verification method between the electronic questionnaire based defense information system according to the present invention is an implementation used in various defense information systems as information covering technologies and standards that can be used in constructing a defense information system. Build a set of implementation options in the master server to include the options (S810).

Here, the set of implementation options must satisfy completeness, structuring, and maintainability.

It is complete here that the set of implementation options should include a wide range of standards, technologies, and products used in building defense information systems or available in the near future.

Here, considering the completeness, the size of the implementation option set is very large. In particular, considering the variety of IT technologies and the size and complexity of defense information systems, it is obvious that the number of implementation option items will be very large. If the implementation options are not structured and managed enumerated, it is very difficult to compare the defense information system with the implementation options, and it becomes difficult to manage the implementation option set itself. Therefore, a structure for a set of implementation options is required.

Here, constant maintenance is essential if the set of implementation options is up to date. In other words, there should be a way to properly reflect the standard, technology, and product that can be adopted in the defense information system according to the development of IT technology in the future.

Previously, when the implementation option set is structured and generated, a query for interoperability evaluation is built on the master server based on the implementation option set (S820).

When the questionnaire is written, the master server makes a query to the defense information system client using the questionnaire and waits for a response (S830).

The master server creates a profile based on the response (S540).

The master server measures the potential level based on the profile (S850).

The master server performs the test using the test scenario by the potential level (S860).

The master server determines the operation level by combining the results of the above (S870).

Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described above with reference to the accompanying drawings, the technical configuration of the present invention described above may be modified in other specific forms by those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains without changing its technical spirit or essential features. It will be appreciated that it may be practiced. Therefore, the above-described embodiments are to be understood as illustrative and not restrictive in all respects, and the scope of the present invention is indicated by the appended claims rather than the detailed description, and the meaning and scope of the claims and All changes or modifications derived from the equivalent concept should be interpreted as being included in the scope of the present invention.

According to the configuration of the present invention described above, the interoperability between the defense information system by the information system interoperability level LISI can be measured in an electronic questionnaire and confirmed through testing.

Claims (15)

A master server including an evaluation master for querying interoperability and a test master for performing a test according to a test scenario for evaluation of the evaluation master; A slave server of the defense information system, in which an application program for measuring interoperability is installed; And A client that responds to a questionnaire about the interoperability of the defense information system generated by the evaluation master and created based on a set of implementation options; Including, electronic survey-based defense information system interoperability evaluation / verification system. delete delete delete delete delete delete delete delete delete delete The method of claim 1, The implementation option is an interoperability evaluation / validation system among electronic questionnaire based defense information systems, which is a tree structure including element level, service level, standard level and product level hierarchy. The method of claim 12, The tree is a hierarchical structure of a balance tree, the interoperability evaluation / verification system between electronic survey-based defense information system. (a) building a set of implementation options at the master server, including implementation options used in various defense information systems, to satisfy characteristics of completeness, structuring and maintainability; (b) constructing a query for interoperability evaluation on a master server based on the set of implementation options; (c) the master server querying the defense information system client using a query; (d) the master server creating a profile based on the previous response; (e) the master server measuring the potential level based on the profile; (f) the master server performing a test using a test scenario at a latent level; (g) determining, by the master server, the operation level by combining the results of the foregoing; Including, electronic survey-based defense information system interoperability evaluation / verification method. delete

Images