[Moims-dai] Re: Proposed edits to the MACAO Blue Book
Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr
Fri Sep 4 13:00:34 UTC 2015
Sorry for this late answer, mainly due to summer holidays. We discussed the DAI WG response at one of our telecons (message from John, agreed by the WG):
We are sure that we can agree to a renaming of the current MACAO registries.
In fact that was going to be part of our proposal also.
I'm not sure if you recall, but we've requested this since the MACAO registries were first moved into SANA. We've always felt for example that the registry noted as "Space Agencies" was inappropriately named as it could be very confusing for many users find the SANA Registry site.
As noted, the MACAO system and the Data Format Registration system has not worked as we originally envisioned. The groups using it have a very poor record of sharing the data format registrations. However NSSDC and I believe ESA are still registering data formats and creating descriptions even though they are not making them publically available. And of course many the DAI CCSDS Standards include registration numbers for the formats described in the standards. Therefore, the DAI WG would need some time to review the situation and figure out how to update or unwind the system.
Overall, the DAI WG felt that the best way forward was to take your suggestion to have SEA set up a group to define Agency and contact registries for general CCSDS use.
We will also need to review the MACAO documents in a couple years. We expect by that time, that the SEA group will have completed the standardizing and prototyping new CCSDS Agency and Contact registries. We expect to evaluate them at that time and really expect that we can just make reference to them in updated MACAO registries standards if we decide to continue support of Data Format Registries.
Does this answer your immediate questions?
We are certainly available to discuss this in more detail if needed.
Perhaps we should plan some short discussions at the CCSDS meeting if there are remaining issues.
De : Shames, Peter M (312B) [mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Envoyé : lundi 24 août 2015 19:28
À : Mike Martin
Cc : MOIMS-Data Archive Ingestion; Boucon Daniele
Objet : Re: [Moims-dai] Re: Proposed edits to the MACAO Blue Book
As you point out, the current MACAO registries are mostly out of date and may be of only marginal value for what they were intended to do.
However, we do have a real need for an up to date CCSDS registry of organizations and persons. In the interest of being able move ahead on this for the other WG I would like to rename the existing "organization " registry to "MACAO Organization", leave it in place for the DAI to sort out, and create a new global CCSDS Organization registry that is extensible and meets all other needs.
This lets us move ahead for the other WG and should also provide a structure that DAI can choose to adopt in the future if that is desired.
The immediate question then is can the DAI agree to this simple, and unambiguous, name change?
Sent from Peter's iPhone 6
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Mike Martin <tahoe_mike at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi Peter
> Here is my two cents worth on the subject.
> Is it possible to poll all the control authority owners and find out if any control authorities are being actively used or actually have any content? One of the DAI concerns regarding the suggested document changes is that it doesn't know the potential impact on these organizations.
> If one starts at the sanaregistry at:
> There is a mix of links to organizations and to control authorities. That ought to be better organized.
> There is a link to the NASA Primary Control Authority Office at GSFC. That site has been inactive since 2004 and the last registration date is 1997. I think that tells us something. It links to:
> which has some ancient but useful format descriptions that should be maintained somewhere.
> There are also a bunch of links for ESA control authorities (http://cao.esoc.esa.de/cao-bin/cao_home) but they reference a broken link.
> The CCSDS Control Authority link points to the main CCSDS web site. It should point to:
> which provides a list of identifiers associated with components of CCSDS standards by referencing the standards documents in which they are defined. I think it would be better if these ADIDs pointed to specific format definitions rather than whole documents.
> The UARS Control Authority Office provides a mailing address.
> All the rest of the entries are links to or mailing addresses for agency sites. That is essentially useless for anyone trying to get format information.
> There is a need for a good format registry, but the SFDU/Control Authority scheme is not the solution. I don't think it is worth the trouble to revise the MACAO document since the subject seems to be deceased.
> Thanks, Mike
>> On 8/20/2015 2:06 PM, Shames, Peter M (312B) wrote:
>> Dear Daniele,
>> I hope this note finds you well, but I suspect that you will not see
>> it until after your summer holidays are past. I am writing again in
>> hopes that we can at least reach some understanding about how to proceed on
>> this matter of the SANA organization and person registries. As you
>> know, the existing MACAO document makes no mention of SANA
>> registries, these were created after the fact as a part of setting up the SANA.
>> Right now there is not even a mention of the SANA in the MACAO, but
>> we do have these on-line registries.
>> What I proposed was to fix that dis-connect and also to leverage the
>> MACAO registries so that they could be used for other purposes within
>> CCSDS. Since they do define organiazations and roles, and persons
>> and their roles, this seems natural. An alternative, of course, is
>> to not do anything to the MACAO documents or the existing SANA
>> registries for the MACAO and to just create new SANA registries that
>> have all of the necessary properties. If we were to do that then the
>> pressure on the DAI WG to change the MACAO documents would be removed
>> and you could choose, at your own pace, to either adopt the new SANA
>> registries when you were ready or to continue with the existing ones
>> but fix the MACAO documents so that they were properly referenced.
>> Right now we have three other WG that really need to make reference
>> to some SANA organization and person registries. The CSS SM WG, the
>> MOIMS Nav WG, and the SOIS APP WG all need to reference registries
>> for organizations and persons. They started out to create their own,
>> rather poorly specified, organization registires, but I, as SEA AD,
>> asked them to stop and consider the consequences. That is what lead
>> to this current situation, and right now these documents are being
>> held up for lack of a resolution. The motivation for me is that the
>> CCSDS as a whole would be much better served by one set of well
>> formed registries than by six or more poorly formed ones.
>> I think that either of the approaches I just mentioned are workable,
>> but in the interest of setting a direction for the SANA as a whole I
>> would like to understand what your preference is and what you think
>> the DAI WG might wish to do.
>> Would you please take the time to analyze this situation, discuss it
>> with your team, and provide us with an indication of your preference?
>> If you could do that within the next two weeks, let's say by the
>> 4'th of September, that would be ideal. We will then figure out the work plan.
>> Best regards, Peter
>> From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
>> <mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:01 AM
>> To: Boucon Daniele <Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr
>> <mailto:Daniele.Boucon at cnes.fr>>
>> Cc: "moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>"
>> <moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org>>
>> Subject: Proposed edits to the MACAO Blue Book
>> Dear Daniele,
>> I hope all is well with you. I think that during one of our
>> conversations I mentioned that the CESG and the SANA Steering Group
>> (SSG) were looking into the somewhat confusing state of our
>> registries in the SANA. We have noted that there are a number of
>> issues and overlaps, particularly in the area of organization and
>> person type registries. The attached presentation, "CCSDS SSG Name
>> & Number Registries", describes the problem in significant detail
>> and also spells out how we propose to fix it.
>> The presentaiton "CCSDS Registry Re-engineering" is the best current
>> description of the form of "what" we propose to do. What we
>> discovered in analyzing the set of CCSDS registries is that there is
>> a set of registries that have to do with the "CCSDS enterprise", the
>> agencies, observers, affiliates, and the people that they appoint to
>> do certain tasks or that have certain roles. But what we also
>> discovered is that some of these registries are well formed, others
>> less so, but that there were overlaps and gaps.
>> We have a proposed plan for clearing all of this up.
>> The reason why I am contacting you as DAI WG chair, is the "how" we
>> propose to do it. There are several parts to this that need to have
>> CESG review and CMC concurrence. There is one, in particular, that
>> needs WG concurrence. In the case of your MACAO Blue Book (CCSDS
>> 630x0b1) we wish to leverage the very good work that has already
>> been done to define and create registries for agencies, and agency
>> sub-elements, and for persons with certain roles. The proposed
>> extensions add some fields for unique identifiers and also a
>> mechanism for adding new roles for identified persons to allow them
>> to manage other registries than just the MACAO. This is a request
>> for your WG to review what we have proposed to see if you can concur
>> with the proposed changes which are in the attached mark-up.
>> The related changes we propose require some related edits to other
>> documents. I have drafts of all of these prepared and CESG review
>> is just awaiting some final adjustments:
>> SANA YB (CCSDS 313x0y1, SEA/SSG)
>> SCID BB (CCSDS 320x0b6, CMC / Secretariat)
>> And the creation of a new one:
>> Registry Management Policy (SEA/SSG)
>> What these changes do is to update the SANA Yellow Book to require
>> WGs to use (or extend) existing registries where that makes sense,
>> and to tell the SANA, in a timely way, when they are creating any
>> new registries or proposing changes to existing registries. The key
>> registries are those relating to organizations (agency, observer,
>> affiliate) and to persons (with various roles). The change to the
>> SCID BB is to add a few fields to that spec, including unique object
>> identifiers for spacecraft, and to extend the current definitions
>> of Agency Representative, the person nominated by an Agency (or
>> Observer) to request changes to the SCID registry. We want to use
>> the general pattern for "Agency Representative" as the way to manage
>> all persons who are assigned (one or more) roles by their agencies.
>> Thus one person (AR) might have only one Role (Agency Rep for
>> SCID) or they might have more than one Role (Agency Rep for SCID,
>> Agency Rep for MACAO,MACAO RP submitter).
>> After working over these concepts with the SSG, SANA Operator, and
>> CCSDS website team we are convinced that a separate Registry
>> Management Policy will be the best way to approach this overall body
>> of work, so I have prepared a draft of that too. That still needs
>> some final changes, so I am not sending it now, just the drafts of
>> the SANA, SCID, and MACAO documents and the analysis and
>> re-engineering materials.
>> I think you will find that the proposed changes do not affect any of
>> the key fields, contents, or intent of what has already been defined
>> in the MACAO. What they are intended to do it to adopt and extend
>> the existing features so that these core enterprise registries can
>> be re-used, and extended, by others. Please review these proposed
>> changes with your WG at the earliest opportunity and let us know if
>> there is an issue. We would all prefer to re-use and extend what is
>> there instead of creating a parallel set of registries, but we can
>> do that if it is deemed necessary.
>> Very best regards, Peter
>> Moims-dai mailing list
>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
More information about the MOIMS-DAI