ngageoint / geoint-standards Goto Github PK

co-create and grow GEOINT standards transparenlty

License: Other

HTML 99.17% Shell 0.28% Python 0.56%

geoint-standards dod nsg nga standards-registry ogc standards geoint geospatial-intelligence geospatial

geoint-standards's Introduction

Intent

The GEOINT Standards Working Group (GWG) is a National System for Geospatial-Intelligence (NSG) forum that serves the Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the NGA Chief Information Officer who is the delegated functional manager for GEOINT architecture and standards, in executing the functional management responsibilities authorized in NSG Directive FM 1100, August 2, 2014. The GWG provides the forum for the coordination of GEOINT standard activities. The GWG is led and chaired by the NGA's Geospatial Intelligence Standards Center of Excellence (GSCOE).

In addition to its designation as an NSG Functional Management forum, the GWG is a Joint Technical Working Group that participates in both the DoD and IC standards governance processes. In the DoD, the GWG votes and manages GEOINT standards lifecycle recommendations reported to the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC), the governing group responsible for developing and promoting standards interoperability in support of net-centricity within the Department of Defense (DoD). GWG recommendations for mandating standards for the DoD are approved by the DoD Architecture and Standards Review Group (ASRG). Approved GEOINT standards are then cited in the DoD Information Technology (IT) Standards Registry (DISR) [Account and PKI/CAC required].

The NSG Standards Registry supports the discovery, traceability, and lifecycle management of GEOINT Standards that may be used in the development and operation of data- and net-centric GEOINT applications. Please see: http://nsgreg.nga.mil

NGA aims to co-create and grow NSG GEOINT standards transparently and provide an environment where GEOINT standards are co-located with code development. This is NGA's first experiment using GitHub, beyond source code development, as a document co-creation system.

In the IC, the GWG provides the same GEOINT standards lifecycle management recommendations brought into the DoD process and these voted upon recommendations are approved for the IC by the IC Enterprise Standards Committee (IC ESC) and the IC CIO's Architecture, Standards and Engineering Committee (ASEC). Approved GEOINT standards are then cited in the IC Standards Registry (ICSR).

The GWG consists of nine chartered focus groups made up of subject matter experts that address topical issues related to GEOINT standards.

NITFS Technical Board (NTB)
Motion Imagery Standard Board (MISB)
Community Sensor Model Working Group (CSMWG)
Geographic Portrayal (PFG)
Application Schemas for Feature Encoding (ASFE)
Metadata (MFG)
Geospatial Web Services (GWS)
Overhead Persistent Infrared (OFG)
World Geodetic System and Geomatics (WGSG)

###Pull Requests Please make a pull request and we'll discuss the changes. All pull request content received will be distributed as public domain within the United States and CC0 1.0 Universal public domain outside the US.

geoint-standards's People

Contributors

Stargazers

Watchers

Forkers

royrathbun cmheazel bgg0817 adeze vovoma zhongkobe harmon758 ethan-vanandel aashish24

geoint-standards's Issues

WMTS Profile: Annex A NSG Requirement 5 Part 1, Test method #7 & #8

A legend and a legend URL are optional--should this be a test? If you want to ensure that the legend is in the correct format or that the URL is accessible online, then they should be reworded to say "If...". At the top of the section, in A.1, the Introduction, it states that, "Any optional item not implemented by a server SHALL not be tested."

NSG Geopackage 2.1

Talking with NGA, Geopackage will be updated from NMIS 2.2 to 3.0.

Please not that I believe that an abstract test suite should be added to the profile as well as an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS)--as was added to the WMTS Profile.

TSPI_Images_Cover_Header

Geopackage-Extra Commas

For the SRS definitions 4326 there is an extra comma after the last number in “Spheroid”, and an extra comma in the same place for SRS 3395, where there is “Ellipsoid”.

TSPI_Images_NGA_Seal

NSG Geopackage 2.1, NSG Requirement 19

NSG requirement 19 states that: Data validity SHALL be assessed against data value constraints specified in Table 26 below using a test suite. Data validity MAY be enforced by SQL triggers.

NSG Req 24: The (min_x, max_x, min_y, max_y) values in the gpkg_contents table SHALL be used to describe an informative bounding rectangle of all tiles in the tile pyramid data table per OGC GeoPackage Clause 1.1.3.1.1

Please note that this has been brought up during the NSG Plugfest and also to the OGC Geopackage working group (Below is the link to this issue in the OGC SWG).

Currently, the OGC compliance test does not check the bounding box requirements for min_X, min_Y, max_X and max_Y in the gpkg_contents table as outlined in the NSG requirement #19. In the OGC specification, the bounding box is informative only and applications have the choice on if this is the default view. However, there is no requirements that this is the exact bounding box or the minimum bounding box of the content for the OGC standard. Later, in NSG Requirement #23 and #24, it says that the min and max values should be the full extent and references 1.1.3.1.1; however, the OGC spec does not say this.

https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/issues/443 This is the link for more information on the OGC GitHub page.

WMTS Profile: Annex A NSG Requirement 5 Part 1, Test method #2

Please correct the spelling of "AccessContraints
".

2018 Change Suggestions Based on the 2018 Geospatial to the Edge Plugfest

AGC_PlugfestProfileChanges_AY_MP_20170917.docx

WMTS Profile: Annex A NSG Requirement 5 Part 1, Test Method #4

Please revisit the need for keywords and/or clarify language on keywords needed, specifically for TileMatrix and TileMatrixSet. This has caused confusion in the implementation of this standard.

Please Note: AGC has talked with a company that is implementing this standard, and they don't believe that having keywords for each tile matrix and tile matrix set is very useful. They believe that users would probably search for keywords on such as things as the layer instead. Putting a keyword for each tile matrix/tile matrix set would just add a lot of extra overhead rather than adding value. So my question is how do people use these keywords in the tilematrix and tilematrix set?

WMTS Profile: Annex A NSG Requirement 5 Part 1, Test method #11 & #12

These should probably be removed because they are optional in the OGC specification and have to do with the Legend. There is also no counterpart in the text. This seems to be copied from the WMS text.

WMTS Profile: Annex A NSG Requirement 5 Part 1, Test method #13 & #14

Test Methods #13 and #13 are not applicable to a WMTS and seems to have been copied from the WMS specification. There is no counterpart in the text before this test method.