In this paper we present the key elements of the NICCI (Network-centric Infrastructure for Command, Control and Intelligence) infrastructure and compare and contrast them with similar capabilities provided by the OGSA (Open Grid Services Architecture) grid infrastructure. We also examine the advantages and disadvantages of using the OGSA grid infrastructure as a substrate for implementing NICCI and highlight some of the technology gaps. Finally, looking ahead at the future of the grid computing research, we identify several research thrusts where we believe there is a natural synergy and opportunity for cross-pollination between the NICCI-sponsored research and the ongoing efforts of the grid community.

Approaches and metrics useful in assuring reliable software, starting from the time at which requirements are defined, are discussed. This study provides the background for a discussion of technology and policy advances that are expected to greatly improve the ability to field the systems promised.>

Purpose. This paper defines a layered functional architecture that is useful for describing interfaces (data or parameter exchanges) between Ada and Data Management Systems (DMS). It uses this architecture in discussing potential approaches to implementating standard interfaces between Ada and both relational and CODASYL DMSs.

Abstract Data from a national survey (n = 1666) of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in the field of rural mental health services were used to conduct a sociometric analysis of person‐to‐person communication in tData from a national survey (n = 1666) of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in the field of rural mental health services were used to conduct a sociometric analysis of person‐to‐person communication in tData from a national survey (n = 1666) of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in the field of rural mental health services were used to conduct a sociometric analysis of person‐to‐person communication in the field. This article describes the structure of the person‐to‐person communication network in terms of its connectedness, centrality, homogeneity, and differentiation. Despite the diversity of survey respondents, and apparently meager interorganizational communication, communication in the field is similar, in many respects, to that observed in “invisible colleges.” While the probability of two randomly chosen individuals being in contact is low (0.0008), over 70% were connected indirectly. The person‐to‐person communication network is also highly centralized and exhibits higher than expected communication among respondents in the same professional role, type of work organization, and geographical region. It does not appear to be highly differentiated with respect to topic, since the majority of information providers are contacted with respect to a number of topi While the probability of two randomly chosen individuals being in contact is low (0.0008), over 70% were connected indirectly. The person‐to‐person communication network is also highly centralized and exhibits While the probability of two randomly chosen individuals being in contact is low (0.0008), over 70% were connected indirectly. The person‐to‐person communication network is also highly centralized and exhibits higher than expected communication among respondents in the same professional role, type of work organization, and geographical region. It does not appear to be highly differentiated with respect to topic, since the majority of information providers are contacted with respect to a number of topics.