[CESG] CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
CCSDS Secretariat
thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Thu Jan 11 20:54:43 UTC 2024
Dear CESG Members,
Conditions for approval of CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1) have been disposed to the satisfaction of the AD(s) who voted to approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now proceed with CMC polling to authorize publication.
-------------- next part --------------
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:41 AM
To: r.krosley at andropogon.org; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-
1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of
Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Ramon & Jonathan,
This works for me.
Thanks, Peter
On 11/5/23, 12:36 PM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>"
<r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>> wrote:
Hi Peter and Erik
The attachment is the DoT extracted from owl files and formatted like a glossary. Sorry it took so long,
but I was prioritizing work with Artemis folks, assisting work on interoperability testing SEDS, and an
error in the commercial owl product for python. Anyway, here is the DoT. I can insert the attachment
into the 876.1 glossary, probably as a cohesive section.
Having a python program to format the DoT makes it possible to format for other portals, so let me
know whether you would prefer that.
Ramon
-----Original Message-----
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:25 PM
To: r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta
Book, Issue 1)
Hi Ramon,
Thanks for providing this feedback and some options.
I think I would prefer to see your Option 1, but without the QUDV ontology. My logic for this is that the
DoT terms themselves are a part of the published CCSDS space systems canon, but the QUDV terms are
not. I would leave QUDV as a separate, external reference.
If Erik concurs with this approach that is how I would handle it.
In addition to this, there is the FRM point that Erik made, which is an interesting one and it bears further
analysis. I did produce the attached analysis of protocols, EDS, FRM, and MAL SM&C a while back, for a
different purpose, but I suspect that it is still relevant. I'd like to suggest that we review this and see if
we can all agree with the points that are made, and/or change it until we can agree. I'd also like to see
the "inverted" set of FRM models produced that could be used on the flight side. I have the feeling that
would be a useful library to have available, but that is also a separate (but related somehow) issue.
Related to this topic I have been working with the FRM folk to get their tooling and representations
sorted out. In my recent feedback to them I said this:
I think that the heart of the challenge for this modeling is that you are really combining aspects of three
different viewpoints into one (Functional, Component, and Protocol), and that is likely the major source
of the complexity. A part of that is ensuring that we have adequately clear definitions of terms and that
we agree on the nature of the objects that are being represented.
That is a whole long discussion, but I'll resolve it with the FRM crew. Back on the SEDS, my assumption
has always been that the SEDS is intended to describe the interfaces, parameters, and external behavior,
of real components. I think there was the intent all along to also describe connections among
components, and possibly even deployments, but I do not know if that ever got defined. Is this correct in
your opinion?
Is there any interest in trying to sort out these different systems views that SEDS and FRM are modeling
so that we can understand how they fit, or not?
Cheer, Peter
On 9/21/23, 1:59 PM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>" <r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>> wrote:
Erik and Peter:
Here are some ways to resolve the conditions:
1. I think that the simplest response to your conditions would be Peter's suggestion to include the DoT
terms in the already existing CCSDS terms registry. I think that I can do this by placing the DoT terms into
the normative glossary (section 1.5) in the 876.1 book, and they will automatically be transferred to the
SANA CCSDS terms registry. This would insert many units of measure from the QUDV ontology into the
SANA CCSDS terms registry, which could appear as clutter and duplication of a non-CCSDS standard,
unless the QUDV terms are kept out of the normative glossary in the book.
2. Given more time, I could set up a dedicated DoT registry in SANA. This dedicated registry would be
generated from the OWL ontology files in the current SOIS SANA candidate registry. Those OWL files are
used to generate the EDS schema file, seds-core-semantics.xsd, which is also present now in the SOIS
candidate registry. The dedicated DoT registry would be a third alternative format of presentation of the
DoT content (the other two formats being the OWL files and the seds-core-semantics.xsd file). The
soisOwlTools.zip file already can convert the OWL files into an HTML format, and this HTML format
could be used directly or adapted to provide any special needs for the dedicated DoT registry for SANA. I
think that most agencies will use the seds-core-semantics.xsd file, rather than working from the OWL
files, because the latter require ontology-trained personnel, and the former is active in their tool chains.
The Artemis engineering team uses the seds-core-semantics.xsd file as their preferred format. A
dedicated HTML display of the DoT might be useful to non-technical personnel, but we haven't seen
much interest in it.
3. Integration into the FRM will require some study. My first impression is that the FRM and the SOIS
EDS schema are aimed at separate parts of the agency tool chains, requiring separate assumptions.
Let me know whether one of these alternatives is satisfactory to resolve the conditions.
Ramon
-----Original Message-----
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>>;
r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>
Cc: Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> <mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov> <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface
Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Dear Document Rapporteur,
The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—
Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1) concluded with
conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve
with conditions and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard
Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book,
Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2023 and ending 14 September 2023:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Fischer, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Shames)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Similar concern/condition as that noted by the SE AD. It would
be better if there was a dedicated registry in SANA to record the DoTs (Dictionary of Terms).
A comment, but not a conditation -- this tends to point at the need for (resuming) coordination work
regarding the CSS Area FRM -- functional resource model. I see this -- MB for DoT -- as being a more
detailed elaboration relative to functions that are identified in the FRM (if and when the FRM addresses
on board funcitons).
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): Upon reviewing this document, and the SANA registries, I
believe that there are some disconnects. For instance, there does not appear to be a SANA registry for a
"Dictionary of Terms (DoT)". The SANA Registry that is cited,
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAKT
teAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-
SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$>
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-
SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$>> , contains a large number of files, such as SEDS in XML form,
various OWL files, a "SEDS core semantics" and a SEDS.xsd. The SEDS Core Semantics does appear to
contain a sort of Dictionary of Terms, but the name is confusing and there is no specific DoTerms
provided. There is also a Dictionary of Types (also DoT), but this is really types and not Terms. Please
clarify. You might also consider including these Terms in the formal CCSDS Terms registry.
Total Respondents: 6
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:14 PM
To: r.krosley at andropogon.org; Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-
1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of
Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Hi Ramon,
Yes, just to confirm, my condition is addressed, retired.
Best regards,
-Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: r.krosley at andropogon.org <r.krosley at andropogon.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 11:49
To: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta
Book, Issue 1)
Erik and Peter,
Thanks for this message, which I take as consensus for option 1. I'll get busy on it.
Ramon
-----Original Message-----
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; r.krosley at andropogon.org
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta
Book, Issue 1)
Erik,
Agreed. In fact, I just proposed something like that to Ignacio and co related to a PID Jonathan raised re
MIBs.
Peter
On 9/26/23, 2:29 PM, "Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:
Hi Ramon, Peter,
I am okay with option 1, and agree that we would not want the QUDV terms/ontology showing up in the
SANA registry. QUDV should be referenced and we leave it up to OMG (the "owning" organization for
the QUDV model I think) to maintain it.
At the risk of being pedantic, but just to make clear, my comment about the FRM work was not at all a
condition for moving forward with publication of 876.1-M-1. Having said that and since there are three
area directors on this email I would suggest that we propose to the CESG chairs that we put a topic with
regard to SEDS, FRM, coordination (and indeed this will likely, as the ADs have already noted, stretch to
other areas of CCSDS) on the CESG agenda.
Best regards,
-Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 14:25
To: r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
<erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta
Book, Issue 1)
Hi Ramon,
Thanks for providing this feedback and some options.
I think I would prefer to see your Option 1, but without the QUDV ontology. My logic for this is that the
DoT terms themselves are a part of the published CCSDS space systems canon, but the QUDV terms are
not. I would leave QUDV as a separate, external reference.
If Erik concurs with this approach that is how I would handle it.
In addition to this, there is the FRM point that Erik made, which is an interesting one and it bears further
analysis. I did produce the attached analysis of protocols, EDS, FRM, and MAL SM&C a while back, for a
different purpose, but I suspect that it is still relevant. I'd like to suggest that we review this and see if
we can all agree with the points that are made, and/or change it until we can agree. I'd also like to see
the "inverted" set of FRM models produced that could be used on the flight side. I have the feeling that
would be a useful library to have available, but that is also a separate (but related somehow) issue.
Related to this topic I have been working with the FRM folk to get their tooling and representations
sorted out. In my recent feedback to them I said this:
I think that the heart of the challenge for this modeling is that you are really combining aspects of three
different viewpoints into one (Functional, Component, and Protocol), and that is likely the major source
of the complexity. A part of that is ensuring that we have adequately clear definitions of terms and that
we agree on the nature of the objects that are being represented.
That is a whole long discussion, but I'll resolve it with the FRM crew. Back on the SEDS, my assumption
has always been that the SEDS is intended to describe the interfaces, parameters, and external behavior,
of real components. I think there was the intent all along to also describe connections among
components, and possibly even deployments, but I do not know if that ever got defined. Is this correct in
your opinion?
Is there any interest in trying to sort out these different systems views that SEDS and FRM are modeling
so that we can understand how they fit, or not?
Cheer, Peter
On 9/21/23, 1:59 PM, "r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>" <r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>> wrote:
Erik and Peter:
Here are some ways to resolve the conditions:
1. I think that the simplest response to your conditions would be Peter's suggestion to include the DoT
terms in the already existing CCSDS terms registry. I think that I can do this by placing the DoT terms into
the normative glossary (section 1.5) in the 876.1 book, and they will automatically be transferred to the
SANA CCSDS terms registry. This would insert many units of measure from the QUDV ontology into the
SANA CCSDS terms registry, which could appear as clutter and duplication of a non-CCSDS standard,
unless the QUDV terms are kept out of the normative glossary in the book.
2. Given more time, I could set up a dedicated DoT registry in SANA. This dedicated registry would be
generated from the OWL ontology files in the current SOIS SANA candidate registry. Those OWL files are
used to generate the EDS schema file, seds-core-semantics.xsd, which is also present now in the SOIS
candidate registry. The dedicated DoT registry would be a third alternative format of presentation of the
DoT content (the other two formats being the OWL files and the seds-core-semantics.xsd file). The
soisOwlTools.zip file already can convert the OWL files into an HTML format, and this HTML format
could be used directly or adapted to provide any special needs for the dedicated DoT registry for SANA. I
think that most agencies will use the seds-core-semantics.xsd file, rather than working from the OWL
files, because the latter require ontology-trained personnel, and the former is active in their tool chains.
The Artemis engineering team uses the seds-core-semantics.xsd file as their preferred format. A
dedicated HTML display of the DoT might be useful to non-technical personnel, but we haven't seen
much interest in it.
3. Integration into the FRM will require some study. My first impression is that the FRM and the SOIS
EDS schema are aimed at separate parts of the agency tool chains, requiring separate assumptions.
Let me know whether one of these alternatives is satisfactory to resolve the conditions.
Ramon
-----Original Message-----
From: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net <mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>>>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>
<mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov <mailto:Jonathan.J.Wilmot at NASA.gov>>;
r.krosley at andropogon.org <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org> <mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org
<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>
Cc: Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> <mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Erik.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov> <mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
<mailto:Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface
Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Dear Document Rapporteur,
The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—
Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book, Issue 1) concluded with
conditions. Please negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who voted to approve
with conditions and CC the Secretariat on all related correspondence.
CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2023-08-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 876.1-M-1, Spacecraft Onboard
Interface Services—Specification for Dictionary of Terms for Electronic Data Sheets (Magenta Book,
Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 August 2023 and ending 14 September 2023:
Abstain: 0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Fischer, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury)
Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Barkley, Shames)
Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): Similar concern/condition as that noted by the SE AD. It would
be better if there was a dedicated registry in SANA to record the DoTs (Dictionary of Terms).
A comment, but not a conditation -- this tends to point at the need for (resuming) coordination work
regarding the CSS Area FRM -- functional resource model. I see this -- MB for DoT -- as being a more
detailed elaboration relative to functions that are identified in the FRM (if and when the FRM addresses
on board funcitons).
Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions): Upon reviewing this document, and the SANA registries, I
believe that there are some disconnects. For instance, there does not appear to be a SANA registry for a
"Dictionary of Terms (DoT)". The SANA Registry that is cited,
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAKT
teAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-
SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$>
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://sanaregistry.org/r/sois/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IGWWNQ7mLAK
TteAROnYv50kbZgEYriw2GBmKkZfrWbR1B0TFhRjckewYy1t_CM1a7-
SLzX_aZwaE8JeLdcie4y7ZByg52Ok$>> , contains a large number of files, such as SEDS in XML form,
various OWL files, a "SEDS core semantics" and a SEDS.xsd. The SEDS Core Semantics does appear to
contain a sort of Dictionary of Terms, but the name is confusing and there is no specific DoTerms
provided. There is also a Dictionary of Types (also DoT), but this is really types and not Terms. Please
clarify. You might also consider including these Terms in the formal CCSDS Terms registry.
Total Respondents: 6
All Areas responded to this question.
SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More information about the CESG
mailing list