[Smwg] Action from January telecon -- PIF user parameter

Barkley, Erik J (3970) Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Feb 13 19:15:13 UTC 2019

Hello Colin,

I took an action at the January telecon to provide some verbiage for the description of the PIF user parameters.  Please see item 7 from the email below for more context.

Here is my proposed verbiage for adding a note to clarify what "user" means in the context of a PIF:

Note: For earth based apertures, the user is typically a spacecraft that is either using a particular set of ground station apertures or will potentially use those apertures. This is in keeping with a traditional notion of service-provider vs service-user. For off-earth based apertures, the "user" is typically a spacecraft providing relay services for the off-earth based aperture (which is likely to be rover or other in-situ asset).   Broader terms that encompass both of these cases are "observer" and "observed".  In all cases the aperture is considered to be the "observer" and the spacecraft for which communication geometry is requested is the "observed".   This recommendation retains the term "user" to be consistent with a common data header for all of service management, but the term "user" can and should be read as "observed" for this recommendation.

The more I look at this I can't help but think we could "fix" this at the "source" - ie., provide some abstract definition at the level of common data entities header, with the data format recommendations subsequently putting their unique instance terms in as needed.  Having said that, I think it is only the PIF that has this "issue", so it may be better just to leave this as a note in the PIF itself.

Best regards,

From: Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 15:27
To: 'Colin.Haddow at esa.int' <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>
Cc: CCSDS SMWG ML(smwg at mailman.ccsds.org) <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>; Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de
Subject: RE: [Smwg] 902x2-w0_20 - Planning Information Formats - Updated draft

Hello Colin,

The book generally looks to be in very good shape.  Please find my comments immediately below.

Best regards, and Happy New Year,


1)       Section 1.8, reference 1 is now a silver book; as such, I think this should be removed from the list of references.

2) -- presumably there would be nothing to stop ApertureCelestialBodiesPosition class to be allowed for an aperture on earth. Should be either add a note to indicate that this can be done or should we add some language to insist that this be used only for celestial bodies other than earth?

3)     3.3.2 through 3.3.5 -- perhaps just simply indicate that these event types are not defined at this time. I.e., remove the indication that they will be added a later revision -- certainly that is our plan, but until we actually get these things defined I'm not sure that we can concretely say that they will be in a later revision.

4)     Table 3-30, comment CRH2: yes, the list of occultation types makes sense to me.

5)     B2.2 -- this needs to be a role other than a "SchedulePublisher" -- I'm not sure what that would be but perhaps this could be something like a SpaceLinkPlanner role? The idea is to try to make this generic to all of the planning data types. It's a clunky term -- other suggestions for the naming of the role are certainly welcome.

6)     B2 (SANA considerations): XML Schema is not listed as being registered, but then we have the (new) overall schema organization to consider.  You ask a good question in Annex C about this [comment CRH4].  Taking a look at SANA, we already have a registry for the service management schemas (https://sanaregistry.org/r/service_management_xml_schemas) which is essentially the list of overall schemas.  So I think we can just call out the individual information entity schemas for each book - which, if you agree, means that we would call out the PIF XML schema in the SANA registry in B2.  This kind of gets into CM/organization for prototyping vs a "presentation" view for publication.  I suspect this would be a good conversation to have at or next telecon.

7)     B2.3 - (although this might not be the place for this):  "USER" -- I recall that we had quite a discussion at the Berlin meetings and I did not see that the document has been updated to reflect that - here are my notes from the meeting summary circulated on November 1st:

1.       The term "user" generated a fair amount discussion in the on-than-earth-celestial-body context

a.       Term is has its "traditional" meaning when considered strictly from the point of view of an earth based aperture and planning information with regard to rise/set for that particular aperture

                                                              i.      this is typically understood to be an aperture of the service provider

b.      in the off Earth celestial body context such as Mars coordination, the service provider is not necessarily a traditional TT&C provider

                                                              i.      in reality, it tends to be yet another organization between various spacecraft mission operations centers utilizing common infrastructure

                                                            ii.      in this case the "user" is a spacecraft that serves as a relay for a landed asset on Mars

c.       Agreed that the definition of the term will be addressed in an update to the draft recommendation as being context dependent
             I think maybe a note or something needs to be added to the PIF to clarify the definition of user?  (Or did I miss something?)

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 08:50
To: CCSDS SMWG ML(smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>) <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Cc: Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de<mailto:Wolfgang.Frase at dlr.de>
Subject: [Smwg] 902x2-w0_20 - Planning Information Formats - Updated draft

Dear all,
                 I've just uploaded the latest draft of the Planning Information Formats Book to CWE, This contains the updates in line with the discussions and agreements from Berlin.

The Planning Information Formats document can be found at the following URL.

Document:        https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-SM/CWE%20Private/Book%20Production/Blue/Planning%20Information%20Format/White%20Book/Drafts/902x2-w0_20%20-%20Planning%20Information%20Formats.doc

In addition the a consistent set of Schemas and UML Models for the following draft books;

  *   Abstract Event Definition,
  *   Service Management Common Data Entities
  *   Planning Information Formats
  *   Service Management Utilization Request Formats

can be found at the following URLs;

Schema:        https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-SM/CWE%20Private/Book%20Production/Schemas/902%20Schema%2020181214.zip
UML Model:        https://cwe.ccsds.org/css/docs/CSS-SM/CWE%20Private/Book%20Production/UML%20Model/902%20UML%20Model%2020181214.zip

Cheers for now,


Dr. Colin R. Haddow,
HSO-GI, European Space Agency,
European Space Operations Centre,
Robert-Bosch-Str 5,
64293 Darmstadt,

Phone; +49 6151 90 2896
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int<mailto:colin.haddow at esa.int>

This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or

protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received

this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect

personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int<mailto:dpo at esa.int>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20190213/9d392fba/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the SMWG mailing list