[CESG] CCSDS <=> OMG Liaison interface

[Pham, Timothy T (US 3300)]

Hi Peter,
Good points and thank you for alerting us on the current gap. I’ll need to read up more on the OMG publications and get a better understanding the CCSDS-OMG relationship, but in general, I agree it’s good to have some organization interfaces with the OMG for awareness/synchronization.   Perhaps we can discuss it more at one of the CESG midterm meetings to finalize our plan of action.
Tim

From: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:01 PM
To: Klaus-Juergen Schulz <Klaus-Juergen.Schulz at esa.int>, "Pham, Timothy T (US 3300)" <timothy.t.pham at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: CCSDS <=> OMG Liaison interface

Dear K-J, Tim, et al,

When Mario retired CCSDS lost its liaison interface to the OMG.  We had previously lost the NASA liaison, Dan Smith, as well, so our interface with that organization has been in limbo.  I recently became aware of some standards work in OMG that seemed to overlap our optical comm WG and reached out to Steve Laird, the OMG liaison PoC, to understand if we had a problem.

His concerns are two-fold:

  1.  We no longer have a CCSDS liaison PoC for OMG, and things are dropping between the cracks (in the chasm is more like it).
  2.  They have a new Software Defined Radio spec (called STI) that they want to get ISO “cover page” adoption and are also interested in learning if CCSDS is interested.

Liaison:
I think that it is in CCSDS best interest if these is someone to replace Mario in that Liaison role. Some of the standards from OMG are most directly related to MOIMS, like XTCE, so replacing Mario with Daniel or Mehran might make the most sense.  But some specs, like this STI one, or data transport specs, or SysML specs, are also of interest to other Areas in CCSDS and are broader than just Mission Ops.  My point is that whoever sits in that role really should be looking at the broader range of OMG standards that relate to CCSDS than just Mission Operations.

STI:
This STI spec appears, after a quick scan, to be a software defined radio abstract model.  In order to “use it” it needs to be bound to a specific platform (a platform specific model in OMG-speak) and it needs to be bound to one or more programmable “wave-forms”.  These could be CCSDS RF, modulation, coding, and link layers, but the STI is silent on this, so it is not really tied to CCSDS as all, not even by strong reference.  We could, by the way, have pushed for that if we cared, but we didn’t.

It might be that Wilmot / SOIS should be looking at this STI spec.  Or that Sanchez-Aguillar should.  The new “extensions” to STI are supposed to accommodate optical comm.

Other:
There are others at JPL who have been involved in the UML & SysML developments over the years.  I suspect that some other agencies might also be involved.  NASA / GSFC was involved re GMSEC a while back, hence, Dan Smith’s interests.  The OMG is developing some data transport standards and has probably developed some cloud based work that CSS & Barkley may be interested in.  And they just published a Unified Architecture Framework for enterprise-class acquisitions that SEA examined.

I don’t have any firm opinion other than to be concerned that this is an organizational interface that someone ought to be tending.  Do we have a plan to replace Mario in this role?  Are thee candidates?

Thanks, Peter



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20230615/b7792919/attachment.htm>