[CESG] Results of Recent CESG Poll

Thu Jan 4 18:48:07 UTC 2018

Dear CESG,

As is usual with liaison agreements, as opposed to specific project statements, they are written in very general terms.  The feedback seems to be confusing the two.  This is a request to create a specific liaison arrangement, not a specific CCSDS (or ISO SC14) project.

That said, the specific intent of this liaison arrangement is to create a frameowkr within which one or more future projects could be created.  The motivation for this is the the ISO TC20/SC14 has found value in the CCSDS Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS), CCSDS 311.0-M-1 for describing the data systems aspects of the standards that they develop.  The five provided viewpoints: Enterprise, Functional, Connectivity, Communications, and Information are just as well suited for their standards as they are for CCSDS.

However, what they have identified a use for are additional viewpoints that are particularly relevant for them, namely Physical and Operational (procedural).  These are viewpoints that we typically do not use, but that they focus upon.  So their intent is to work with us to develop these added viewpoints to extend the basic set in RASDS.  The exact details of how to do this are TBD, those will be developed once the speifics of the project(s), as opposed to the cooperative framework, are agreed upon.

I will point out that the RASDS provides a methodology for describing space data system architectures and not a specific architecture.  As stated in the intro to that document:

The RASDS is intended to provide a standardized approach for description of data system architectures and high-level designs, which individual CCSDS working groups may use within CCSDS. This approach is aligned with current practices in the fields of system and software architecture and is specifically adapted for the space domain. While it is intended for use within CCSDS, it is also suitable for use by mission and project design teams to describe system architectures and designs within the space domain. It does not propose any specific formal modeling method or tool, but can be adapted to use methods like UML or SysML

The RASDS document uses PPT diagrams as the representation method, but the important concepts have to do with the use of viewpoints, views, clear identification of the kinds of objects and relationships shown in these views, and their use in addressing stakeholder concerns.  The other important concept is that of correspondence, which provides a method for relating abstract objects documented in one with to their concrete realizations in other views.  All of these concepts and methods may have alternate representations in SysML.  At the time we produced RASDS there was not yet broad support for this, but that seems to have shifted, even within CCSDS, and so one possible future project might be to produce a mapping from PPT representation to a SysML one.

Whether any of this goes forward is a matter of WG discussion and availability of resources.  As with all CCSDS WG the assignment of resources is a matter of creating draft projects and seeking support for them from the interested agencies.  I suggest that we continue to adhere to this process, of separating liaison agreements from specific project work and allow this agreement to go forward in the normal way, without convolving project considerations into the discussion.

Best regards, Peter

_______________________________________________________

Peter Shames
Manager - JPL Data Systems Standards Program
InterPlanetary Network Directorate
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-230
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA

Telephone: +1 818 354-5740,  Fax: +1 818 393-0028

Internet:  Peter.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive at where we started, and know the place for the first time"

                                                                                             T.S. Eliot
________________________________
From: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.] <brian.oliver at nasa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 6:26:57 PM
To: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Cc: CCSDS
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CESG Poll

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2017-10-001 Approval of SC14 and SC13/CCSDS Information Exchange for Reference Architecture Extensions

Results of CESG poll beginning 26 October 2017 and ending 4 December 2017:

Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  2 (40%) (Burleigh, Shames)
Approve with Conditions:  3 (60%) (Calzolari, Barkley, Merri)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions):
The text of the resolution is not very clear and requires explanations. In particular:　
1. It is stated that "TC20/SC14 and the CCSDS liaison have reviewed this proposal ... to be sent for approval": who specifically has done this?　

2. The text implies that the joint SC13/SC14 reference architecture shall be created, maintained and evolved. On CCSDS side, something is being done to cover the CCSDS side. Is the same being done on SC14 side? Timescale?　

3. How will the joint architecture be described? Using the current approach adopted by CCSDS that is based on power point/document?　

4. What is the approach to harmonise the SC14 and SC13 reference architectures? What resources are required and where do they come from?　

5. Similarly, once the harmonised architecture exits, what resources are required to maintain it and evolve it and who will pay for this?　

6. Is the joint reference architecture meant to be an overall roadmap for SC13 and SC14, thus indicating completed, in progress and future work?　

7. What will be the governance of the harmonised architecture?

Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):
I concur with the conditions expressed by MOIMS AD. It would be good discussing the matter CESG wide in a meeting/webex.

Eric Barkley (Approve with Conditions):
A minor editorial condition:  Suggest replacing "they" in the last sentence of the resolution to "TSO/SC14 and SC13/CCSDS" (assuming this is who is meant by "they').

Total Respondents: 5
No response was received from the following Area(s):

SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20180104/eccf0c3c/attachment.html>