[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry

Mon Nov 9 15:38:17 UTC 2015

Not a serious matter, but there are diverse local, national, and institutional conventions that must prevail.  Like UTC, which is Coordinated Universal Time, not universal coordinated time, or ISO, the International Organization for Standardization.   There are institutional and historical reasons for these, which do not conform to logical standardization.

Dave

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Shames, Peter M (312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> To use your own words "The purpose of a standard is to enable exchange with all in a uniform manner without negotiating bilateral or independent agreements.”
> 
> 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.
> 
> You now say you are “SkySentry”, but I know you as "Dave”.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> From: SkySentry <finklemand at skysentry.net>
> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:39 AM
> To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Cc: David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>, "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
> Subject: Re: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry
> 
> 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.
> 
> Dave Finkleman
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Shames, Peter M (312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
>> You missed my point.  Anyone can use these for their own purposes, and use there own names, whether gibberish or not.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Peter 
>> 
>> Sent from Peter's iPhone 6
>> 
>> Everything should be made as simple as possible, 
>> but not simpler.  
>> 
>> ~Albert Einstein
>> 
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Berry, David S (3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Peter:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:25 PM
>>> To: David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>, "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry
>>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> Please suggest one official formulation for these names in the CDM registry that we can apply to all organizations uniformly.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM
>>> To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca>, "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
>>> Subject: Navigation WG Requests for SANA "Organization" Registry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Peter:
>>> 
>>> With respect to the SANA Registry Re-Engineering ongoing, the Navigation
>>> WG requires the incorporation of the following into the
>>> http://sanaregistry.org/r/organizations/organizations.html registry based
>>> on material that exists in our current set of Blue Book publications.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, we urge that the conversion from "candidate" to "approved"
>>> registry be concluded as soon as possible for the Organizations registry.
>>> Because of its implied size and far-reaching nature, this Organization
>>> registry is one that could potentially require changes on a weekly basis.
>>> It will never be perfect, but if the update cycle is sufficiently
>>> frequent, the gap between the registry and reality should be minimized.
>>> 
>>> Here are the specific changes requested (since the "Registration Policy"
>>> for this registry is not yet specified, I'll send them to you):
>>> 
>>> 1.  The role of "CDM Originator" and the values in the registry
>>> "Conjunction Data Message ORIGINATOR"
>>> http://sanaregistry.org/r/cdm_originator/cdm_originator.html should be
>>> added.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, we would request that the following entries for the
>>> "Abbreviation" column be added in the Organizations registry based on
>>> examples shown in our current Blue Books.  Until now this has been
>>> essentially free form text, which explains the variety of values... note
>>> that there should be no REQUIREMENT for values to be drawn from the SANA
>>> Registry, as I believe this will restrict some adoption of standards by
>>> newly interested organizations.
>>> 
>>> 2.  ESA_ESAC (shown on CDM example)
>>> 3.  ESOC (shown in ODM example, TDM example)
>>> 4.  GSFC FDF (shown in ADM example and NDM/XML example)
>>> 5.  GSOC (shown in ODM example, TDM example)
>>> 6.  INMARSAT/UK (shown in ODM example)
>>> 
>>> 7.  INTELSAT/USA (shown in ODM example)
>>> 8.  JSC (shown in ADM example)
>>> 9.  JSPOC (shown on CDM example)
>>> 10. NASA-JPL (shown on CDM example)
>>> 11. NASA/JPL (shown in ODM example... agency with specific subordinate
>>> organization)
>>> 
>>> 12. NASA/JPL/DSN (specified in NASA JPL 820-013 document)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 13. NOAA/USA (shown in ODM example and NDM/XML example... NOAA is in the
>>> registry, but the ODM recommends including the country when the
>>> organization is not one of the member agencies)
>>> 14. SDC (shown on CDM example)
>>> 15. USAF (shown in ODM example)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alternatively, corrigenda could be put into those books that have examples
>>> that are deemed not suitable for the Organizations registry.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list
>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20151109/3f920f44/attachment.html>