<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Dave,</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">To use your own words "</font><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">The purpose of a standard is to enable exchange with all in a uniform manner without negotiating bilateral or independent
agreements.</span>”</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div>That is exactly what we are proposing, that we come up with a uniform / consistent way to name organiziations and their subsidiaries. At the same time, I think it wise to allow the use of aliases and even to allow orgs to use the standards in a bi-lateral
mode without registered names. We also want a uniform way to unambiguously apply a tag to all registered organizations (and people, and specacraft) using ISO OIDs. These are totally unambigous in a global sense.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You now say you are “SkySentry”, but I know you as "Dave”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>SkySentry <<a href="mailto:finklemand@skysentry.net">finklemand@skysentry.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:39 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>David Berry <<a href="mailto:David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov">David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov</a>>, Marc Blanchet <<a href="mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca">marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca</a>>, "<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>I understand, but we cannot tell each how to present itself to everyone. Each has an existing representation used long since with its limited set of correspondents. The purpose of a standard is to enable exchange with all in a uniform manner without
negotiating bilateral or independent agreements. If individual agreements are required for completeness, there is no standard. This is the issue I have with the OHM and other work items that have a large number of optional items. They can only be used
if the correspondents negotiate comprehensive ICD's. The point of a standard is that it is complete and able to be applied responsively.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Dave Finkleman<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On Nov 9, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Shames, Peter M (312B) <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>You missed my point. Anyone can use these for their own purposes, and use there own names, whether gibberish or not.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">But for organizations that do choose to register we should adopt a uniform and understandable approach for naming them so that it does not look totally chaotic.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Peter <br>
<br>
Sent from Peter's iPhone 6
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Everything should be made as simple as possible, </div>
<div>but not simpler. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>~Albert Einstein</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Berry, David S (3920) <<a href="mailto:david.s.berry@jpl.nasa.gov">david.s.berry@jpl.nasa.gov</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that "order" in these things make sense. However, as you know, the universe is not all that orderly and is fated to become more disorderly despite our best efforts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can arrive at some standard representations for the SANA and request corrigenda for the various books already published with free form text in the ORIGINATOR keyword. But ultimately I do think the SANA entries can only be suggestions... for example,
I wouldn't want to tell some university student that wanted to represent a trajectory in an OEM that they couldn't do that because their organization wasn't registered with the SANA. I don't think the CCSDS looks to be that exclusive.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>"Shames, Peter M (312B)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:25 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>David Berry <<a href="mailto:David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov">David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Marc Blanchet <<a href="mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca">marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca</a>>, "<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hi David,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree completely that we should strive to get this new policy approved and the registries cast as Approved at the earliest opportunity. I further would suggest that if this is what you want to have happen that you lobby with the MOIMS leadership to
ensure that it gets the support from them to go forward.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We will, in any event, ask that these other organizations that are in your list be added to the new Organization registry. You will have to contact them yourself and ask them to provide the rst of the registration information. Either that, or please
provide at least a Point of Contact (PoC) at each organization so that the SANA Operator can contact them by email.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can add the CDM originator Role and the aliases that you have identified. I do note that the aliases do not seem to follow any particular logic. For instance, why not ESOC and ESAC, or ESA_ESOC and ESA_ESAC? Similarly, why GSFC FDF and not GSFC_FDF
and why INMARSAT/UK. Why NASA-JPL (and NASA / JPL), but not NASA-GSFC, or even NASA_GSFC?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We get that there are a bunch of random aliases that people use, but don’t you think that a certain amount of order would make some sense, at least in the ones that we register officially? If there is an agency that has one or more centers then I think
it would be good to have the official names for all the ones of that type consistent and not random. You can always allow these randomized aliases, yes?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please suggest one official formulation for these names in the CDM registry that we can apply to all organizations uniformly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, Peter</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>David Berry <<a href="mailto:David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov">David.S.Berry@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Marc Blanchet <<a href="mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca">marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca</a>>, "<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org">moims-nav-exec@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Peter:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With respect to the SANA Registry Re-Engineering ongoing, the Navigation</div>
<div>WG requires the incorporation of the following into the</div>
<div><a href="http://sanaregistry.org/r/organizations/organizations.html">http://sanaregistry.org/r/organizations/organizations.html</a> registry based</div>
<div>on material that exists in our current set of Blue Book publications.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Additionally, we urge that the conversion from "candidate" to "approved"</div>
<div>registry be concluded as soon as possible for the Organizations registry.</div>
<div>Because of its implied size and far-reaching nature, this Organization</div>
<div>registry is one that could potentially require changes on a weekly basis.</div>
<div>It will never be perfect, but if the update cycle is sufficiently</div>
<div>frequent, the gap between the registry and reality should be minimized.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here are the specific changes requested (since the "Registration Policy"</div>
<div>for this registry is not yet specified, I'll send them to you):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. The role of "CDM Originator" and the values in the registry</div>
<div>"Conjunction Data Message ORIGINATOR"</div>
<div><a href="http://sanaregistry.org/r/cdm_originator/cdm_originator.html">http://sanaregistry.org/r/cdm_originator/cdm_originator.html</a> should be</div>
<div>added.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Additionally, we would request that the following entries for the</div>
<div>"Abbreviation" column be added in the Organizations registry based on</div>
<div>examples shown in our current Blue Books. Until now this has been</div>
<div>essentially free form text, which explains the variety of values... note</div>
<div>that there should be no REQUIREMENT for values to be drawn from the SANA</div>
<div>Registry, as I believe this will restrict some adoption of standards by</div>
<div>newly interested organizations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. ESA_ESAC (shown on CDM example)</div>
<div>3. ESOC (shown in ODM example, TDM example)</div>
<div>4. GSFC FDF (shown in ADM example and NDM/XML example)</div>
<div>5. GSOC (shown in ODM example, TDM example)</div>
<div>6. INMARSAT/UK (shown in ODM example)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>7. INTELSAT/USA (shown in ODM example)</div>
<div>8. JSC (shown in ADM example)</div>
<div>9. JSPOC (shown on CDM example)</div>
<div>10. NASA-JPL (shown on CDM example)</div>
<div>11. NASA/JPL (shown in ODM example... agency with specific subordinate</div>
<div>organization)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>12. NASA/JPL/DSN (specified in NASA JPL 820-013 document)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>13. NOAA/USA (shown in ODM example and NDM/XML example... NOAA is in the</div>
<div>registry, but the ODM recommends including the country when the</div>
<div>organization is not one of the member agencies)</div>
<div>14. SDC (shown on CDM example)</div>
<div>15. USAF (shown in ODM example)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alternatively, corrigenda could be put into those books that have examples</div>
<div>that are deemed not suitable for the Organizations registry.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:MOIMS-NAV-EXEC@mailman.ccsds.org">MOIMS-NAV-EXEC@mailman.ccsds.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec">http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
</body>
</html>