Issues in Using the Environmental Data Coding Specification for Data Interchange

1
Issues in Using the Environmental Data Coding
Specification for Data Interchange

• Dr. Dale D. Miller
• Geo-Spatial Technologies, Inc.
• Seattle, WA
• dmiller_at_gsti3d.com
• Dr. Paul A. Birkel
• The MITRE Corporation
• McLean, VA
• pbirkel_at_mitre.org
• Annette Janett Filer
• Lockheed Martin Simulation,Training Support
• Bellevue, WA
• annette.janett_at_lmco.com

2
Background

• For the Spring 2005 SIW, two of us were asked (as
  PDG members) to contribute to paper 05S-SIW-098
• The Environmental Data Coding Specification and
  its SISO Role
• Proposed Section 12 Issues and Controversies
  stirred controversy among coauthors and reviewers

As all members of the EDCS PDG have had ample
opportunity to review this paper, the authors
speak for the PDG in their endorsement of the
EDCS and associated implementations as given in
the next section. Nevertheless, issues and
controversies about the EDCS remain, and we would
be remiss in avoiding them herein. Some problems
are, we believe, a natural part of the
evolutionary process of developing such a
specification and can and will be remedied in
subsequent versions or through the registration
process. Other issues may be more fundamental and
could become barriers to its eventual widespread
use. To be clear, the authors are neither
advocating nor opposing this hypothesis rather,
we believe it our responsibility to inform the
SISO community of its existence. ...
3
Paper Purpose

• EDCS PDG membership had a diversity of opinion
• Not reflected in 05S-SIW-098
• Present paper is a PDG minority opinion
• To promote greater understanding of the relevant
  issues within the SISO community, and
• To identify some next steps that the SISO
  community should pursue
• Basic thesis
• The EDCS concept interoperability cup is at
  least half full
• It appears to satisfy the interoperability
  requirement internal to the SISO community (if
  properly implemented by SISO members)
• But the cup is significantly short of completely
  full
• Due to interoperability issues with systems
  external to the SISO community (systems with
  which MS must interoperate)

The Environmental Data Coding Specification and
its SISO Role
4
Author Credentials

• Birkel (Senior Principal Scientist, MITRE)
• Member of original SEDRIS gang of six
  development team
• One of two Editors of the EDCS (ISO/IEC 18025)
  standard
• First working draft (11/1999) through final draft
  (07/2004)
• Currently providing NSG standards support
  (NGA/NCGIS)
• Feature data dictionaries, feature catalogs,
  registers,logical data models, feature
  portrayals, COIs, MS
• Represents NGA in DGIWG, IHO, ISO, Eurocontrol
  ICAO
• Miller (Senior Scientist, GSTI (formerly Lockheed
  Martin))
• Grassroots contributor to EDCS since 1999
• Lead developer of WARSIM and OOS EDMs
• Vice chair of EDCS SISO PDG since inception in
  2000
• Janett Filer (Senior Software Engineer, Lockheed
  Martin STS)
• Co-author of 05S-SIW-098 The Environmental Data
  Coding Specification and its SISO Role
• Lead developer of CDMF (uses multiple version of
  EDCS)
• Contributed to OOS EDM and associated EDCS
  extensions
• Contributions to EDCS
• As SEDRIS Associate
• Member of SISO EDCS PDG Drafting Group

National System for Geospatial-Intelligence Nat
ional Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
5
Some Issues with the EDCSPotentially Affecting
Interoperability

• Suboptimal definitions
• Continued use of previous versions of EDCS
• Imperfect and non-authoritative mappings
• Use of non-interoperable dictionaries by
  federated COIs

Conclude with Recommended SISO Community Actions
Community of Interest (see DoDD 8320.2) Global
Information Grid
6
Suboptimal Definitions

• Not all definitions are complete and unambiguous
• 05S-SIW-098 gave examples
• PREDOMINANT_VEGETATION_HEIGHT
• HEIGHT_AGL
• HEIGHT_ABOVE_SURFACE_LEVEL
• This is also true for many other feature data
  dictionaries (FDD)
• Without complete and unambiguous
  definitionsinteroperability will necessarily be
  compromised
• Remedy Improve definitions as part of a future
  amendment process
• Note Concepts in the published International
  Standard (IS)may not be changed through
  registration but may be deprecated

The Environmental Data Coding Specification and
its SISO Role
7
Continued Use of Previous EDCS Versions

• WARSIM EDCS 2.9, OneSAF Objective System EDCS
  3.0
• These EDCS implementations differ significantly
  from the EDCS IS
• Current EDCS implementation is 4.0
• These major DoD MS Programs do not intend to
  migrate to the IS
• Yet these programs have an expected life of ? 20
  years
• EDCS version is tightly coupled to their internal
  data model upon which major subsystems depend ?
  would require review and rewriting
• At the (affordable) best ? lossy
  initialization-time importers/exporters could be
  (re)written and (potentially lossy) HLA
  interfaces updated in order to interface with
  EDCS IS-based applications
• Achieving and maintaining cross-version EDCS
  interoperabilityrequires a long-term commitment
• If the EDCS does evolve further through the
  process of registration(or amendment) then it is
  important that systems be fundedto adopt those
  changes
• Else the current level of interoperability will
  unavoidably decline

8
Imperfect and Non-Authoritative Mappings

• EDCS began as an upward compatible extension to
  FACC
• FACC Edition 2.1 is the current DISR-mandated
  geospatial standardfor all DoD and Intelligence
  Community systems
• Since 9/2000, when the EDCS adopted an
  independent development path, there has been an
  increasing divergence between the two standards
• Focus in this presentation is on concept
  definition divergence
• An example consequence Original 11 mappings
  (FACC ? EDCS)now must map n enumerants of FACC
  to m enumerants of EDCS,where the enumerants may
  be distributed over several attributes
• SEDRIS program provides (non-authoritative)
  mappings
• FACC 2.1 to EDCS 4.0 Mapping SDK Release 4.0.0
• EDCS 4.0 to FACC 2.1 Mapping SDK Release 4.0.0
• Pursuit of rigor in developing the EDCS IS has
  perturbed original FACC-tied semantics, resulting
  in lossy mappings and lack of interoperability
• Examples follow

Feature and Attribute Coding Catalog
(https//www.dgiwg.org/FAD/) DoD IT Standards
Registry (https//disronline.disa.mil/) http//
www.sedris.org/dwn4trpl.htm
9
Ex. 1 Correct but Lossy Mapping
10
Ex. 2 Lossy and/or Incorrect Mappings(from
FACC features to EDCS ltclassification, attribute,
enumerationgt)
11
Ex. 3 Lossy and Incorrect 11 Classification
Mappings
12
Ex. 4 Lossy and/or Incorrect Enumeration
Mappings (1/2)
13
Ex. 4 Lossy and/or Incorrect Enumeration
Mappings (2/2)
14
Use of Non-Interoperable Dictionaries by
Federated Communities of Interest (COI)

• DoD Directive 8320.2, Data Sharing in a
  Net-Centric Department of Defense
• All data must be made visible, accessible
  understandable early in life cycle
• Communities of data producers, consumers and
  system developers must provide the mechanism for
  net-centric data sharing
• MS community and GIG-based operational community
  have adopted different environmental data
  dictionaries
• Geospatial (JP 1-02 Geospatial Information and
  Services)
• MS EDCS (many versions)
• GIG-based Operations (led by NSG Functional
  Manager, NGA)NSG FDD (successor to the FACC,
  supporting the NSG Feature Catalog)
• METOC (JP 1-02 Meteorological and Oceanographic)
• MS EDCS (many versions)
• GIG-based Operations (led by Joint METOC
  Interoperability Board) JMB FDD (supporting
  JMBL and the JMCDM)

Joint METOC Broker (also JMBL Joint METOC
Broker Language, and JMCDM Joint METOC
Conceptual Data Model)
15
One Solution Registry of Federated Profiles of
Authoritative Environmental Data Dictionaries

• Exemplified by Army Battlespace Environment (ABE)
  federated registry
• See 05F-SIW-097
• Approach being adopted as the basis for
  harmonization across the Defense Geospatial
  Community (DGC)
• DGC comprised of a family of coordinated COIs to
  address issues in environmental data exchange
• Aeronautical, Hydrographic Littoral,
  Installations Environment, Imagery, Topography
  Hydrology, Urban, Geoanalysis, METOC
• DGC governance through the Geospatial
  Intelligence Board (GIB) andJoint METOC
  Interoperability Board (JMIB)
• Concept adjudication directly managed by COIs
• Through processes in accordance with DoDD 8320.2
• Results drive DISR standards and DoD Metadata
  Registry
• Affect system acquisition and deployment/operation
  s, respectively

The Army Battlespace Environment Registry of
Federated Feature Data Dictionaries http//diide
s.ncr.disa.mil/
16
Conclusions and Recommendations

• MS community must consume geospatial and METOC
  data from authoritative providers and (in some
  cases) interoperate with GIG-based Operations
  applications
• The source of environmental data on the GIG
• Direct-use is required for applications such as
  embedded training
• Legacy/heritage/current software investment makes
  it unlikely that major system re-writes are
  feasible
• Either MS or Operations applications
• Objective of GIG Enterprise Services is to
  support JiT as-needed data translation
• Currently without validated, lossless mappings
  from authoritative data sources or GIG-based
  Operations standards to EDCS (or reverse)
• Recommend DoD MS community empower and fund an
  authority to develop and validate lossless
  mappings from the data dictionaries of
  Authoritative Data Sources and GIG-based
  Operations applications to (many versions of) the
  EDCS
• The DGC is an appropriate venue for SISO to
  pursue this objective
• Recommend SISO community should align EDCS
  content (and MS use) with the environmental data
  standards already employed on the GIG
• The COI framework is an appropriate context
  within which to pursue this objective
• The EDCS registry is a MS community mechanism
  available to support such an activity
• Recommend DoD MS community should explore the
  interoperability implications of continued
  employment of the many versions of the EDCS by
  SISO members