Title: Issues in Using the Environmental Data Coding Specification for Data Interchange
1Issues 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
2Background
- 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. ...
3Paper 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
4Author 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
5Some 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
6Suboptimal 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
7Continued 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
8Imperfect 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
9Ex. 1 Correct but Lossy Mapping
10Ex. 2 Lossy and/or Incorrect Mappings(from
FACC features to EDCS ltclassification, attribute,
enumerationgt)
11Ex. 3 Lossy and Incorrect 11 Classification
Mappings
12Ex. 4 Lossy and/or Incorrect Enumeration
Mappings (1/2)
13Ex. 4 Lossy and/or Incorrect Enumeration
Mappings (2/2)
14Use 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)
15One 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/
16Conclusions 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