 Hi everybody, this is Patrick Collier. Can you hear me? Sharon, can I just show you guys can hear me? Yes, you can. Okay, so I am currently the chair of the conformance standing committee in SOSA and one of the colleagues for the hardware subcommittee. Okay, so the brief minus slides I have we're going to go into what SOSA is and describe some of the specific pieces. What SOSA is in general is a unified module open reference architecture. And it has associated business models for a set of sensor modalities that you can see written here from radar to EYR, SIGINT, EW and COMs. And we are following most of the principles that allow the vendor suppliers integrators to innovate and protect their IP and while maintaining adherence to the interfaces and those pieces of the reference architecture that is SOSA. There is a structure top-down approach within the reference architecture itself that uses things like quality attributes, architectural principles, and the fact that we are using DoDAP as a framework in order to build all these pieces. And what we are using is a consensus standards body approach. This is a group of individuals that are working together harmoniously in order to create this effort what we're calling SOSA. What you see written there are five working groups. These are amended through a restructuring process that has subcommittees, a technical working group, something very similar to what faces right now. They cover all aspects, whether it's architecture, business, electromechanical, which are the parts that are external to say a chassis that are connections from one thing to another. And then the hardware, which is anything inside a chassis and all associated software. From a product point of view, we are creating a technical standard in business guides. We are also creating documents as part of the conformance program. What we've done to date is create what we're calling snapshots, literally, where the document is in time in order for people in the consortium and outside of consortium to get an idea of where we are and the process of coming to technical standard version one. Lastly, at least on this slide, we are, like I mentioned, developing a conformance program. It is under active development and the hope is that we will are what we're shooting for schedule. I just to have that out very soon after version 1 of the technical standard drops. So, in a nutshell, who is involved in this, the services, Army, Navy, Air Force, other government agencies that have an interest in open standards or MOSA industry and academia. Like I mentioned before, what are we doing? We're developing a unified technical standard for those five sensor modalities. We are doing it in a phased approach, so we will have those parts out of the most mature ready for version one as we continue to work for the other parts into subsequent versions. Why are we doing this? We want to improve subsystem system and platform affordability reconfigurability. If you see these LEDs here, you know that these are some of the quality attributes that we have in our list that we hold as tenants. Those are the fundamental things that we're working towards as part of this effort. Software, hardware and firmware portability, that's a very big one right now. And also, it's also very important to shorten the cycle times to counter-emerging threats. How are we doing it? Again, by developing this OSA, be a modular decomposition. We wanted to find the functions and the behaviors and also their interfaces, those key open interfaces that are both physical and logical and also the data structure level between the modules. And those modules are what you see here graphically. This is the fundamental piece of the reference architecture. These are what we're calling SOSA modules. These are logical building blocks. What we try, what a lot of us are trying to convey when we're at the part of... And part of doing this process and this effort is to say that we have a set of building blocks that you can use to configure those items or those procurable products that you feel makes the most sense for whatever modality, whatever application you're shooting for. Here with these SOSA modules, these building blocks, which can be instantiated in hardware or software in different ways for different sensors. The same thing could be said for the hardware portion of the standards. We are developing a set of hardware building blocks that allow you to configure that hardware piece of the platform or that type of application. It could be that it's for an EOIR application, could be for an EW application. And then the idea, like I mentioned before, with portabilities that you can actually take those pieces and reuse them with a minimal amount of reconfiguration. These cards or plug-in cards that we're calling them that are part of plug-in card profiles are the essential hardware level building blocks. The system itself is inherently interoperable, like I mentioned, and compatible with nonconformant hardware. So the idea is that you can have this in a system with non-SOSA and that you're able to interface both and work seamlessly. So from a software perspective, and a lot of this is referencing what Chris just talked about with states, the SOSA modules that I just mentioned, those building blocks that have OSA interfaces will use one of these types of interfaces, whether it's POSIX or ARINC. The SOSA modules themselves may be implemented by software components based on existing standards, our software frameworks, for example, like Mora, Frost or Redhawk. All of those are pieces that we're working on currently within the SOSA effort. The other three major bullets are sort of a rehash of what Chris just talked about. Since we are referencing states, we are going to be using their general purpose profile, their safety profile, and their security profile. From a business point of view, we will be developing business guides. These business guides, in terms of a value proposition, talk about business cases, the rationale behind them, the benefits challenges, the programs, and those mandates. There is an open business model that talks about an acquisition process, legacy systems and backward compatibility, conformance, and that ties into the conformance program itself. So there is communication between the two, so you know from the business point of view what you need to do to become conformant. Also additionally, data rights and IP. So as you're working with SOSA and developing for SOSA, you know what your rights are and how your IP is protected. There's also an overview of the technical standards and some examples of adoption, as you see in the graphic below. In terms of execution process for contracts, the intent is to say after an award, any OSSA tasks are performed transparently to ensure that there is consistency with the architectural principles and technical standards. There is a recommendation that this be done through a combination of independent oversight and certification of conformance. So that's where that conformance program comes in again to make sure that the people who are providing the products are actually doing what they say they're doing. So it is at the discretion of the procuring organization to execute that oversight and the oversight can include specific reviews that address conformance and the requirements that are listed in the procurement. And then I think finally with reference to the conformance program that I mentioned on the plan that's under development, there are pieces to this. There's a verification piece and certification piece. For those that are familiar with FACE, you've seen this before. The intent here is for us to make sure that we can verify products that are coming in, that they have it here to the OSSA standard and the requirements therein. And we also want to make sure that we can certify them and ensure that there's a database for people to go to to find those products when they want to look for them. I think that's it. Patrick, thank you. I have one question. This question is around the communication interfaces. A set of listed existing standards were shown. Is it open for new developments in this area, such as time sensitive networks, TSN? Well, if I understand the question, is it open for, is it open for evolution to include new interfaces? Then yes, that's something that the standard and the effort does continually. It's always evolving. Thank you.