(NSG) GEOSPATIAL METADATA DESK SIDE REFERENCE by sxl19665

VIEWS: 122 PAGES: 86

									    NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                  August 23, 2007




           NATIONAL SYSTEM
FOR GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE (NSG)
       GEOSPATIAL METADATA
        DESK SIDE REFERENCE
                  (NGMDSR)




                     VERSION 1.0




                    August 23, 2007




                                                                1
    NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




         This page intentionally left blank




                                                            2
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                    NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                            August 23, 2007


                                Table of Contents
Fore word                                                                      Page 5

Preface                                                                        Page 6

Executive Summary                                                              Page 7

Part 1 – Introduction and Purpose                                              Page 9

   1. Introduction – The Importance and Use of Geospatial Metadata             Page 10
   1.1 Purpose – The Metadata Guidance Document                                Page 11
   1.2 Background – The Criticality of Geospatial Metadata within the NSG      Page 12
   1.3 Intelligence Community Data Management Committee (DMC)                  Page 14
   1.4 The Role of NGA/NCGIS and Standardization within the NSG                Page 16
   1.5 Standards Enforcement                                                   Page 18
   1.6 Registries                                                              Page 20

Part 2 – GWG Metadata Focus Group                                              Page 21

   2. GWG Metadata Focus Group (MFG)                                           Page 22
   2.1 Levels of Metadata                                                      Page 23
   2.2 NSG Geospatial Metadata Profile                                         Page 28
   2.3 Geospatial Metadata Drivers                                             Page 31
   2.4 On-going Geospatial Metadata Activities                                 Page 33

Part 3 – Geospatial Metadata Issues and Exploitation                           Page 41

   3. Metadata                                                                 Page 42
   3.1 General Discussion of Metadata                                          Page 42
   3.2. Geospatial Metadata Management                                         Page 42
   3.3 Geospatial Metadata Management and Architecture                         Page 43
   3.4 Other Metadata Categories                                               Page 44
   3.5 Testing of Metadata Requirements                                        Page 46
   3.6 Geospatial Profiles and Access Tools                                    Page 47
   3.7 Metadata Management and Responsibilities                                Page 48
   3.8 Classes of General Metadata                                             Page 49
   3.9 Types of Specific Metadata                                              Page 50
   3.10 Profiles of Standards                                                  Page 51
   3.11 Specific WEB Services                                                  Page 52
   3.12 User Requirements                                                      Page 52
   3.13 Encoding                                                               Page 53
   3.14 XML Schema reuse capabilities                                          Page 54
   3.15 Crosswalk Management and Entity Mapping                                Page 54

                                                                                          3
                    NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                   NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                 August 23, 2007



APPENDICES:

   Appendix A – Terms of Reference                                  Page 61
   Appendix B – Related Standards Information                       Page 63
   Appendix C – Legislation and Guidance on Standards               Page 65
   Appendix D – Emerging Standards                                  Page 71
   Appendix E – ISO 19115 Normative and Informative References      Page 73
   Appendix F – DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) Definitions        Page 79
   Appendix G – List of Acronyms                                    Page 81

Review Information and Comment Forms                                Page 83




                                                                               4
                   NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007



                                             Fore word


This document has been developed to be used as a general reference for Geospatial Metadata
users and developers to consult for guidance and helpful information pertaining to questions and
issues that have been raised frequently in various fora within the geospatial community It is
hoped that this document will, after continuous update, serve as a single reference to satisfy the
needs of the community by addressing those many common questions and issues. The
document is written in an informative manner, allowing for some interpretation by the reader,
and yet points the reader to various normative agencies‘ mandated requirements (DOD Metadata
Working Group, Intelligence Community Data Management Committee, etc.) and driving
standards (ISO 19115, OGC specifications, etc.).

There are numerous ongoing metadata activities and issues that overlap and affect
interoperability of GEOINT across the National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG)
(explained later in this document). Coordination of all these metadata activities is critical and is
being facilitated by a GEOINT Standards Working Group (GWG) Metadata Focus Working
Group (MFG) which was formed in 2005 and helps leverage NSG resources to coordinate these
profiling and harmonization efforts.

This Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference allows the Metadata Focus Group of the GWG to
provide a handy companion to all NSG Geospatial Metadata users and developers in a timely and
sufficient manner.

There are several sections of this document that remain incomplete. There are also other sections
being considered for future incorporation. Many of these sections require input from those
members of the Geospatial Community of Interest to share their profiling and general experience
with the rest of the community.

It is planned that this Desk Side Reference be updated periodically, perhaps semi-annually, to let
the community as a whole share their experiences with the remainder of the Geospatial
community. This reference will be as good and helpful to the community as what the
community invests in its development and applicability.


Please send your questions and comments to:

Norman C. Andersen
National Geospatial Standards Agency
National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards
Metadata Standards office
Telephone 703-814-4565

norman.c.andersen@nga.mil

                                                                                                       5
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007


                                          PREFACE

                           Metadata and Its Importance

Metadata is first data about data that describes the content and the appropriate detail about a data
resource. More than that, metadata describes the richness of information behind data collected
from any source—when the data was collected, who owns the information, who can access the
information, and when the data becomes no longer of value and should be retired or archived.
Of prime importance is that by providing such contextual and background material, metadata
enables automated discovery of information resources. As such, metadata is a key enabler of
data and system interoperability. The usage of metadata is being expanded to include finding
resources such as geospatial systems and data assets, web services, standards and other specific
tagged information. In the current movement to an increasingly net-centric world, the speed,
agility and interoperability required cannot be met without appropriate metadata.

Metadata is becoming even more critical as the volumes of archived data, imagery and other
geospatial assets resources continue to grow at rapid rates. One example is the airborne
community‘s imagery libraries with their rapidly increasing volume of data. Human search
capabilities could not possibly access and evaluate such copious amounts of data in any range of
normal operational time constraints.

Without metadata many searches would have to be conducted with Google- like tools with much
effort spent trying to determine if the data or other resource meets the specific need. Without
metadata, a consumer could not efficiently and effectively discover and retrieve the information
that contains the characteristics and content necessary to support a required mission. Metadata
instills data accountability and limits data liability. This is especially true for the National
System for Geospatial-Intelligence (NSG) in the use of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) data.
Providing metadata according to applicable standards, including harmonization between and
among required metadata standards, further increases the utility and value of data and discovery
services.

It is critical that the work and development of metadata and metadata standards for NGA and
GEOINT data and other informational resources be funded in the current move to an increas ingly
net-centric environment to provide the critical high level of customer support required of NGA.




                                                                                                   6
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                              August 23, 2007




                             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



The National System of Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) Geospatial Metadata Deskside Reference
(NGMDSR) addresses the need as identified in the Preface for clear and concise guidance in the
use of geospatial standards as metadata within the geospatial intelligence community. The
document covers a wide array of topics from metadata drivers through metadata management to
current issues in the field.

The three-part guide is intended as an answer to many of the frequently asked questions from
users of geospatial standards compiled over the years, as well as an informative text to
consolidate in one place the references, informal practices, and guiding principles of using
metadata within the geospatial community. The first Chapter discusses the framework within
which geospatial standards function and are derived. Chapter Two introduces the Metadata
Focus Group which is the source of the document and highlights the many activities of the Focus
Group and its sub- groups. The third part, by far the longest, contains many theoretical and
practical aspects of using and managing geospatial metadata within the community. The many
appendices include useful information on additional related standards, emerging standards, and
the DISR, the Defense registry for information technology standards.

The document is intended to evolve as the geospatial and the standards communities evolve and
as net-centric development and guidance continues. Please send feedback to the National Center
for Geospatial Intelligence Standards (NCGIS) at ncgis@gwg.nga.mil.or use the feedback form
after Appendix G.




                                                                                              7
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




         This page intentionally left blank




                                                            8
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




Part 1 – Introduction and Purpose




                                                            9
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                    August 23, 2007

                               Part 1 – Introduction and Purpose

1.0 Introduction – The Importance and Use of Geospatial Metadata

The importance of metadata is that it enables discovery of information and is a key enabler of
data and system interoperability. Metadata is data about data that describes the content and
the appropriate use of a data resource. It is particularly important to have metadata for data
resources that have no obvious meaning outside of the context within which they were collected.
For example, an unlabeled image is useless without knowledge of when, where, and how it was
taken. Metadata are critical to the search, use, re-use, and quality assessment of data. Incorrect
or non-existent metadata constrain the sharing and exploitation of GEOINT, resulting in negative
impacts to the NSG customer community (explained later).

Metadata is a key component of the geospatial data set. It carries critical information as to the
dataset purpose, location, content, and lineage. Geospatial software and analysts increasingly
rely on metadata to ingest, display, and manage data. Perhaps most significantly, metadata is the
consumer information needed by a rapidly growing geospatial data market to locate available
geospatial data resources and assess their fitness for a particular use. Metadata instills data
accountability and limits data liability. The timely capture of metadata is fundamental to the
quality of the data set as a whole.

In order for a data resource to be discovered, assessed for its fitness or use, retrieved, and then
exchanged in the current Joint and Coalition operating environment, it must comply with existing
International Organization for Standards (ISO) documents such as ISO 19115 (Geographic
Information - Metadata) that mandates the structure and content of metadata for geospatial
information. But simple compliance with standards is not the only issue concerning metadata.
The implementation of the standards that allow a good deal of flexibility and customization must
be harmonized across an enterprise to ensure that all data within that enterprise can be easily
discovered and accurately exchanged. Improperly implemented metadata is worse than no
metadata at all because it presents a false sense of security while prohibiting or significantly
limiting a consumer‘s proper use and exploitation of resources, or even the awareness that
resources exist. Continuing support of ISO metadata extension efforts is necessary to ensure that
NSG requirements are addressed in emerging international standards.

One of the things that ISO 19115 brings to metadata organization is that it documents a number
of things in the metadata instance that have previously been documented in a product
specification. For example, a given specification could have a requirement that all geographic
coordinates be reported using World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). Since the coordinate
reference system in this example is fixed (never changing) and specified by the product
specification, it is not necessary to report it in the metadata. For this reason, the legacy metadata
reports a geographic extent without the Coordinate Reference System (CRS) (since it is set by
the product specification to WGS84).

Metadata is becoming even more critical as the volumes of archived data and imagery, such as in
the airborne community‘s imagery libraries, continue to grow to enormous volumes – such that
humans could not possibly access and evaluate all this volume of data. Without good metadata,
                                                                                             10
                    NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

a consumer could not search and retrieve the data that contains the characteristics and content
necessary to support a required mission. Metadata instills data accountability and limits data
liability. The timely capture of metadata is also fundamental to the quality of the data resource
as a whole.

Examples of metadata critical to identify and describe GEOINT data include the title and
date/time of the resource, a narrative description of the resource, the language used within the
resource, lineage information about the events or source data used in constructing the resource,
its security classification and handling procedures, the entity primarily responsible for making
the content of the resource, the quality of the content of the resource, the geographic area that the
resource covers, the method used to spatially represent the geographic information within the
resource, among others.

Metadata can be the description of the data structures used to co ntain the data (structural
metadata) or descriptive information about the data (discovery metadata). ―Structural metadata‖
defines how information is organized. For maintenance of meaning and administration over
time, metadata is usually stored in a metadata registry. A metadata registry contains descriptions
of the organization or description of data or data assets, but not the data itself. Formal
registration of metadata provides for different versions to be maintained over time, a feature that
permits reference in the future without loss of meaningful context and details.

―Discovery metadata‖ describes the aspects of data that define the catalogue data for searching.
A number of general purpose standards exist for cataloguing data. ISO 19115 is a standard for
cataloging geospatial data. Geospatial metadata is required to support the cataloguing of more
specialized information, specifically, information that is associated with a terrestrial location.
Cataloguing geospatial data for efficient search and discovery requires geospatial metadata that
can capture the complex, descriptive information about the data (for example, coordinate
reference system used, positional accuracy, and topological consistency) to be organized in a
common manner, using a common vocabulary.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) form a distinct class of information systems through their
unique requirements for collecting, converting, storing, retrieving, processing, analyzing,
creating, and displaying geographic data. The generic nature of GIS – organizing information by
location – is interdisciplinary and not specific to any application. Adequate and sufficient
metadata is critical for the robust exploitation of a GIS.

1.1 Purpose – The Metadata Guidance Document

This document has been developed to be used as a general reference for Geospatial Metadata
users and developers to consult for guidance and helpful information pertaining to questions and
issues that have been raised frequently in various fora within the geospatial community.
Furthermore, it is intended for those individuals or organizations who desire to develop their
metadata activities within the harmonization and interoperability requirements for Geospatial
Metadata development. Due to the numerous questions concerning metadata from various
working groups, this document is intended to address, at a high level, some of these questions.

                                                                                                    11
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007




1.2 Background – The Criticality of Geospatial Metadata within the NSG

The various entities that comprise the NSG are dep icted in Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. The NSG is
defined as the integration of technology, policies, capabilities, and doctrine necessary to conduct
geospatial intelligence in a multi- intelligence environment. It includes the DoD and non-DoD
components of the Intelligence Community (IC), including, where appropriate, coalition and
Federal civil agency partners.

Of particular importance to the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence (NSG) is the use of
geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) data. In the same manner as previously described, an accurate
and descriptive set of geospatial metadata is a key component of the geospatial dataset that is
needed by a rapidly growing geospatial data market within the NSG to locate available
geospatial data resources and assess their fitness for a particular use, allowing the appropriate use
and exploitation of that geospatial data.

As data moves into the net-centric environment with data being served and packaged on the fly
according to a user‘s requirements (and possibly from heterogeneous sources) the idea of
metadata being hidden in a product specification becomes very unattractive. This is because the
flexibility provided in the net-centric environment may mean that data, for example, is reported
using multiple CRSs that must be known to the application so that it can make the appropriate
translations into a CRS for display of the information.




                                                                                                  12
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007




                                Figure 1-1. NSG Configuration



                                      Figure 1-1. The NSG


Geospatial Metadata profiles for differing NSG environments (refer to Figure 1-1., above)
provide standardized extensions that apply to special user communities, while harmonization
activities help to maintain a high degree of interoperability across these communities (Extensions
are unique to the organization or activity). Since metadata activities and issues overlap and affect
interoperability of GEOINT across the NSG, coordination of all metadata activities is critical.
Under the GWG, a Geospatial Metadata Focus Group (MFG) was developed to help leverage
NSG resources to coordinate these profiling and harmonization efforts. The challenge to the
MFG will be to profile and extend existing Geospatial Metadata activities to define a metadata
implementation for GEOINT from disparate data stores, to include legacy product holdings.

To be successful, the NSG geospatial metadata standardization work must begin with the
profiling of all intelligence related metadata standards (see 1.3) with appropriate extensions to
account for geospatial intelligence. In addition to sensor and product specific profiles, there will
also be several profiles that define metadata for cataloguing, search and retrieval, and
exploitation. These disparate profiles must then be connected (i.e., harmonized, or mapped) to
enhance interoperability by providing a common base for describing, translating, validating and
accessing metadata about geographic, imagery and gridded data between Communities of
Interest (COI). The profiles and their mappings must be made available to the COI through a
net-centric, enterprise-wide, metadata support infrastructure required to support the capture,
storage and exchange of metadata thorough out the entire enterprise.

                                                                                                  13
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007




             Figure 1-2. Intelligence Community (IC) Organizational Structure


1.3 Intelligence Community Data Management Committee (IC DMC)

The Intelligence Community (IC) (Figure 1-2) is comprised of key entities of the NSG. The IC,
notably the IC Data Management Committee (DMC), has purview over several intelligence
related standards which, as stated earlier, need to be profiled with appropriate extensions by NSG
community organizations to account for their own geospatial intelligence mission and needs.

       1.3.1 Introduction – A Metadata Driver

The IC DMC is the body that has replaced the Intelligence Community Metadata Working Group
(IC MWG), and has taken over the metadata standards that describe the production of finished
intelligence (FINTEL). These are the intelligence products that are created by intelligence
analysts and disseminated to the consumers of intelligence. It is imperative that the GEOINT
community ensure that the appropriate metadata is in the raw intelligence data so that the
analysts can put it in the FINTEL.

There are three standards this body is in charge of:
       IC Metadata Standard for Publications (IC MSP)
       IC Metadata Standard for Information Security Markings (IC ISM)
       IC Standard for Core Metadata (IC Core)
                                                                                               14
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                August 23, 2007


     1.3.2 IC Metadata Standard for Publications (IC MSP)

The IC Metadata Standard for Publications (IC MSP) is a set of Document Type Definitions
(DTDs) and corresponding eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schemas for generic
publication types, with accompanying documentation in the form of a data element dictionary
and an implementation guide. The standard has been developed as a cooperative effort in
response to requests by numerous organizations within the IC to have an IC-wide mandated
XML model to support interoperability of intelligence content across producers and consumers
of FINTEL within the Community.

The six generic models are Article, Report, Analytical Packet, Correspondence, Briefing, and
Basic Object. These generic models differ in complexity and applicability. The models are
sufficiently general in nature that, when combined with appropriate formatting information, they
can be used to create most common IC product styles.

Each of the publication models makes use of a set of common content models in the form of
XML entities, notations, attributes and elements. The common content models are what make IC
MSP conducive to interoperability and information reuse. Documents produced in XML using
IC MSP must contain the appropriate metadata in order to be compliant with the standard.

     1.3.3 IC Metadata Standard for Information Security Markings (IC ISM)

The Information Security Marking Standard defines the XML attributes that are used to describe
classification level, SCI controls, dissemination controls, the presence of foreign government
information, et al. The standard also provides XML declarations for three parameter entities that
can be used to associate the attributes with any desired XML element. The Data Element
Dictionary (DED) publication defines the attributes; the Implementation Guide describes the
parameter entities.

The DED contains only unclassified definitions of the security- marking data elements. The
Implementation Guide provides usage instructions and methods for incorporating the security-
marking data elements into Extensible Markup Language (XML) document type definitions
(DTDs) and World Wide Web Consortium XML Schemas

     1.3.4 IC Standard for Core Metadata (IC SCM)

The IC Standard for Core Metadata (SCM) defines logical core metadata elements for resources
posted to Community, collateral, and organizational shared spaces. Core metadata is the
information about intelligence resources that is common across intelligence disciplines, domains
and data formats.

The IC Discovery Metadata Core (DMC) has included only rudimentary geographic reference
elements and attributes in the IC SCM and is relying on the NSG to develop ―a change request to
replace ‗Geographic Reference‘ with a set of elements drawn from International Standard ISO
19139.‖
                                                                                             15
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                          NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                                         August 23, 2007


Continuing support of all ongoing Geospatial Metadata extension efforts are necessary to ensure
that NSG requirements are addressed in emerging national security systems (NSS), IC, and
international standards. Because all of the metadata activities and issues overlap and affect
interoperability of GEOINT across the NSG, coordination of all metadata activities is critical.



                                      Key Players
                                                   IC Agencies
              NGA                         Power user of GEOINT and potential
       Provide guidance on                  consumer of value-added data;                        JFCOM
         NSG, explain NGA                                                                    Role as Joint Force
      transformation efforts,                                                               Integrator; work with
      identify requirements,                                                            Services to identify areas for
      resource requirements                                                                collaboration on joint
        resulting from NGA,                                                                    GEOINT issues
      establishes standards,
                 etc

    STRATCOM                                                                                                DISA
   Support operational                               Collaborative                                     Assess impact
    warfighter; work to                                solution to                                      upon organic
    integrate National                              provide GEOINT                                    warfighter comms;
   and Theater tasking                              to/from tactical                                  how best to carry
   processes, advocate                                                                                capability forward
                                                          level
        joint goals.                                                                                      net centric
                                                                                                         architecture



                Services                                                                    Joint Staff
        Identify requirements, ensure                                             Responsible for requirements
       Service equities represented in                                           certification, IT interoperability,
         development of architecture,                                                          future
      CONOPS, etc., align Service PORs
                                                       COCOMs                      concepts/DOTMLPF/policy
                                       Identify GEOINT battlefield requirements.            changes, etc
                with joint goals
                                         Identify joint interoperable framework.




                                          Figure 1-3. NSG Participants


As future systems and technologies are advanced, the evolution of GEOINT standards must keep
pace ensuring optimum interoperability. The growing need for GEOINT collaboration across
government and national communities requires evolving from the use of government and
proprietary standards toward the use of voluntary consensus standards that support standards-
based commercial off-the-shelf (SCOTS) solutions. At the same time, the sophistication of
GEOINT customers and technologies is changing the emphasis from building static products and
their accompanying specifications to operating within data- and net-centric environments.

1.4 The Role of NGA/NCGIS and Standardization within the NSG

Metadata issues cut across all standardization areas, resulting in a large number of metadata
related activities and a heavy reliance on the NGA National Center for Geospatial Intelligence
                                                                                                                           16
                          NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

Standards (NCGIS) for guidance and expertise to help identify relevant standards (especially
those that refer to schemas, coding/mapping, etc.) and develop the necessary metadata data tables
and schemas. While no specific metadata projects are considered unfunded, resource issues will
affect the level of participation by the NCGIS in NSG community profiling and harmonization
activities.


As the functional manager for GEOINT, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) has
designated the NCGIS to set, implement, and actively advocate for GEOINT standards and
standards management processes and policies that promote interoperability and operational
efficiency across the NSG community. The NCGIS ensures a standards-based approach in
developing enterprise-wide system architectures that are essential to interoperability:

      among the traditional Military Service and Command consumers of GEOINT
      for numerous operational plans that include international coalition partners and engage
       our domestic counterparts
      across the GEOINT enterprise that includes imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial
       information produced and provided by NGA, as well as in collaboration with other
       nations, co-production partners and the private sector
      throughout the myriad components of tools, equipment, training and people that
       constitute the NSG

Several metadata standardization efforts are underway both within the NSG and the broader
international geospatial community, for which NGA is a key leader and stakeholder. Within this
context, NGA leads and participates in efforts to develop and harmonize geospatial metadata
standards within the Intelligence Community (IC), NATO, the international community within
the ISO, as well as within industry and certain federal agencies. NGA‘s primary focus in these
activities is to ensure that NSG requirements are addressed in emerging international metadata
standards.

NGA also works to develop profiles of existing standards. Profiles of metadata standards, such
as ISO 19115, and the XML implementing standard ISO 19139, customize the standards to add
more detailed technical content and enhance the discovery and exchange of data for certain
organizations and uses. NGA‘s metadata harmonization efforts design a consistent
implementation and use of these profiles across the NSG. Without such efforts, the
implementations of these standards and profiles would significantly inhibit and impede
interoperability for data and systems as defined by the data interoperability strategies publis hed
by ASD/NII and the requirements of CJCSI 6212.01D and other applicable DoD directives and
instructions.

A recent and significant activity is NGA‘s sponsoring an effort to develop a new ISO standard
defining metadata for sensors, which will be ISO 19130 (Geographic Information-Sensor data
model for imagery and gridded data). This effort is of great importance to the airborne


                                                                                                  17
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

community, and will facilitate improved data interoperability, and shorter timelines for the data
from the sensor platforms to exploitation stations.

NGA is also aggressively pursuing the development, adoption in organized standards bodies, and
harmonized implementation of metadata standards across the NSG. The main goal for all this
effort is to support the interoperable and discovery needs of the NSG in today‘s and tomorrows
systems.

The NCGIS will be working with the NGA/Acquisitions and NGA/Production Directorates to
define a metadata model for geospatial information, imagery, and imagery intelligence data. The
existing ISO 19115 standard is heavily geospatial-based and lacks imagery fields; therefore, the
emphasis has been geospatial. This problem is being addressed within ISO/Technical
Committee (TC) 211 as ISO 19115-2, Geographic Information – Metadata – Part 2: Extensions
for imagery and gridded data.

1.5 Standards Enforce ment

Since January 2005, the GWG has provided community leadership and management of GEOINT
standardization activities for the NSG.

The GWG is responsible for all activities assigned by the Information Technology Steering
Committee (ITSC), including making recommendations for GEOINT standards to be placed into
the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA) and for coordinated advice and policy recommendations on GEOINT standards issues
related to the DISR. See Annex F for information about the DISR. In its coordinating and
advisory role, GWG activities extend to all aspects of GEOINT standardization, including issues
related to GEOINT standards identification, adoption, promulgation, implementation,
compliance, and education.

The GWG focuses on GEOINT standards that enable interoperability in net-and data-centric
environments and standards that support enabling technologies, data architectures, and software
tools. The GWG is responsible for the GEOINT standards in three DISR Service areas:
Geospatial, Motion Imagery, and Still Imagery. GEOINT is the exploitation and analysis of
imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical features and
geographically referenced activities on the earth. GEOINT consists of imagery, imagery
intelligence and geospatial information. GEOINT standards are those that enable the discovery,
access, use, integration, dissemination, exchange, and exploitation of GEOINT and include, but
are not limited to:
      Still and motion imagery and gridded data content, format, and compression
      Application Schemas for geospatial feature encoding, data dictionaries, and catalogues
      Geospatial portrayal
      Metadata for geospatial intelligence
      Geospatial intelligence reporting
                                                                                                18
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                        NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                                       August 23, 2007

      Information transfer, exchange, and architecture of GEOINT services
      Sensor models for GEOINT services, production, and applications

The GWG supports the ITSC in the configuration management of GEOINT standards within the
DISR. Additionally, the GWG provides a standards- focused forum that the NSG community can
use as a means to exchange and communicate issues regarding GEOINT standards requirements,
development, implementation, and conformance. The GWG recommends GEOINT standards for
data, systems, and their interfaces to ensure interoperability with DoD and non-DoD systems.

Because they are designed to support interoperable systems, the testing for interoperability and
systems adherence to approved GEOINT community standards has been assigned to the DISA
Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC). Figure 1-4 depicts the various directives and
instructions that drive the mission of the JITC. NGA is the lead organization for enforcement o f
U.S. agencies in the use and compliance with the approved standards.

                                    Joint Interoperability
                                   Directives & Instructions

                     DoDD 4630.5                   DoDD 5105.19                     CJCSI 6212.01D
               IT and NSS interoperability        DISA shall ensure           All IT and NSS must be
                                                      end-to-
                                                      end-to-end
                  shall be verified early,                                  evaluated and certified for
                                                   interoperability.
              and with sufficient frequency                                Joint interoperability by DISA
              throughout a system's life …         DoD 4630/5000                       (JITC).
                                                     Interoperability is
                                         “the ability to provide and accept data,
                                          information, materiel, and services ...
                                        ...includes both the technical exchange
                                            of information and the end-to-end
                                                operational effectiveness of
                                              that exchange, as required for
                                                mission accomplishment.”
                     DoDI 4630.8                                                    DoD 5000 series
                                                                           For IT systems, including NSS,
              All IT and NSS … must be            CJCSI 3170.01E            ... JITC shall provide system
              tested for interoperability        Establishes JCIDS        interoperability test certification
            before fielding ... and certified         NR-
                                                   w/ NR-KPP for           memoranda ... throughout the
                    by DISA (JITC).               CDD and CPD.                           life-
                                                                                 system life-cycle and
                                                                                                     3
                                                                                  regardless of ACAT.




                  Figure 1-4. DISA/JITC Directives and support capabilities


Under the GWG, NGA has formed the Metadata Focus Group (MFG) which serves as a NSG
community wide forum to leverage NSG resources to coordinate these metadata standardization
efforts. The MFG membership includes many distinct metadata working groups, agencies and
organizations. The membership consists of over 120 (and growing) individuals at this time, who
represent the US DoD, IC, Federal agencies, coalition partners, and the private geospatial
industry including the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) member companies.
                                                                                             19
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007



1.6 Registries

Register or Registry has often been interchanged with the terms catalogue and repository. While
the use and definition of these terms still appears to be evolving, the term Registry is most often
used to describe the place where a consistent stable store of information about services, assets, or
resources is located, along with the formal process of registration to administer the metadata over
time. The Registration capability may be an automated feature of the metadata registry, or
registration may be accomplished via process. In any case, a registry provides a means by which
metadata may be captured and maintained over time. Should the asset‘s metadata change at
some point (for example, if there are changes in the applicable standard), the old format, its
effective dates and all other metadata are still maintained in case the information is needed in
future operations. In the geospatial community a registry is generally where services level
metadata is placed to facilitate the discovery and use of specific geo-processing services. See
sections 2.4.8 and 2.4.8.2 in this document for more detailed information about registries and
their relevance within the NSG.




                                                                                                 20
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                     August 23, 2007




Part 2 – GWG Geospatial Metadata Focus Group




                                                                 21
       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

                      Part 2 – GWG Geospatial Metadata Focus Group


2.0 GEOINT Standards Working Group (GWG) Metadata Focus Group (MFG)

The Geospatial Metadata Focus Group (MFG), mentioned earlier in Part 1, was established in
2005 and its purpose is to serve as a community-based forum to advocate for information
technology (IT) standardization activities related to the standardization of metadata for GEOINT
data. The MFG serves as a technical advisory group to the GWG and as a coordinating body for
the GEOINT community to address all aspects of the metadata of GEOINT.

The mission of the MFG is to serve as geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) community forum to
identify requirements for metadata of GEOINT data, identify and resolve standardization and
interoperability issues relating to the development of metadata for geospatial intelligence
information and data, and as a conduit for information and coordination relating to GEOINT
metadata activities within the community.

The MFG is designed to assist all groups with compliancy and harmonization of their respective
activities. The group also serves as the GEOINT community forum for metadata-related
standardization and interoperability issues, and exchange of information. This includes the US
DoD, Intelligence Community, Federal agencies, coalition partners, and the GIS industry.

The group currently participates in the development, review, and maintenance of multi- national,
international, and national geospatial metadata standards. These include: NATO
Standardization Agreements (STANAG), ISO Standards, National and Federal Geospatial
Metadata Standards. These standards are the drivers that will assist in providing interoperability
and provides for implementation activities. ―Drivers‖ as referred to in this document, are the
force behind numerous metadata collection, management, archival, and verification tools and
instructions, i.e. metadata standards that NGA and other DoD/IC organizations have been either
mandated to use or have chosen to use. The results of the work mentioned above provide input
directly into the mentioned standards activities.

The GWG MFG deals with those aspects of the standardization of GEOINT relating to Imagery
and geospatial metadata. Metadata is used by a large population of people other than the
producer of the metadata. Usually, it is created by someone and us ed by someone else.
Standardizing the use of metadata will provide creators with appropriate information to
characterize the data. Furthermore, standardizing the use of metadata will enable users to
effectively implement the metadata to facilitate the most efficient method to discover and access
the associated data.

The MFG coordinates activity with the various recognized organizations and will assume a
leading role in the development of standardizing metadata in their respective communities.




                                                                                                22
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                               August 23, 2007

2.1 Levels of Metadata

The focus of MFG activities are to support the various metadata profiling and harmonization
efforts across the NSG community and to influence current ISO standards development work to
support NSG metadata requirements. To achieve this, metadata is developed at several different
levels, and the MFG has developed recommended core metadata sets analogous to these levels
for use in the NSG community.




     Figure 2-1. Major Levels and Flow of Metadata for NSG Geospatial Data Types


In Figure 2-1 above, the “Green Boxes” represent those mandatory elements and entities needed
to be compliant with the various levels of existing and driving metadata requirements. The “Tan
Boxes” represent those mandatory and optional elements and entities which are either suggested
or provided to enhance a specific operational requirement. The “Blue Boxes” represent those
mandatory and optional elements and entities which may be required in some security and data
quality contexts. (Note: Modeling and Simulation is under consideration.)

     2.1.1 All Datasets Level – The highest level of metadata is to be used by all DOD
Agencies, the Intelligence Community, and other Organizations, whether said activity describes
                                                                                             23
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                    August 23, 2007

geospatial data, sensor data, or raster data within their realm. This Metadata is the initial driver
for interoperability across all activities and establishes at this level a minimum set of mandatory
and recommended core metadata elements and entities. All datasets are driven b y the work of
the DoD Metadata Working Group (DoD Metadata Specification (DDMS)) and the Intelligence
Community (IC) metadata standards.

       2.1.2 All Geospatial Datasets Level – This level of metadata is the minimum core for
Geospatial Metadata datasets regardless of the specific geospatial subject (i.e., vector, imagery
and sensor). It is designed to assist in discovery and retrieval. The ―All Geospatial Datasets‖
metadata level includes the DoD and IC metadata standards and is supplemented with the ISO
19115 Geospatial Metadata Standard. The recommended core metadata set analogous to this
level is referred to as the ―NSG Common Core‖, ―NSG Recommended Core‖, or sometimes as
the ―NSG Minimum Core‖.

      2.1.3 Specific Geospatial Datasets Level – That minimum core for Geospatial Metadata
datasets that address the specific Geospatial requirements for vector, raster (imagery) or sensor
geospatial data, and expanded using ISO 19115.




         Figure 2-1a. Vector, Raster, and Sensor Geospatial Metadata Level Examples



                                                                                                    24
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

       2.1.4 Organizational Extensions – Depicted as “Yellow Boxes” in Figure 2-1a, the
deepest level of metadata is the level of metadata unique only to a specific product, agency or
activity and not used by any other activity. It is incumbent upon the specific agencies and
activities to produce their own extensions since, obviously, only that activity is familiar with
their own requirements and can best determine that set of metadata for their own mission and
use.




             Figure 2-1b. Breakdown Flow of the Sensor Geospatial Metadata Level

The sensor metadata comes from many varied sensor types and formats. The primary example of
sensor metadata requirements is that which is required for sensor modeling to mathematically
explain the variables required for the Rigorous Sensor Model (RSM). Each individual sensor
requires its own RSM. For the purpose of identifying the elements needed to access and discover
information derived from a particular sensor, conditional and optional metadata elements are
recommended to ascertain specific identifying information.

In the ―Sensor Schematic‖ in Figure 2-1b above, the ―M‖ box (green) is the mandatory core set
of elements needed to access and discover certain information derived from a specific sensor

                                                                                                   25
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

type. The next ―O‖ (meaning ―Optional‖ elements) box colored tan is the ―recommended core‖
set of metadata elements needed to identify a specific sensor and determine the usefulness of the
information. These elements describe the specific sensor parameters and the resultant data sets to
be used for various specific purposes.

The next set of boxes in the chart (yellow) break down the sensor specific types into the ―active‖
and ―passive‖ sensors. There are additional sensor types that may need to be added in future
iterations of this document. The ones that have been described to date include those sensors that
are non-scanning/non- imaging and those that are imaging sensors. Motion imagery sensors,
hand-held sensors, acoustical sensors, and hydrographic sensors may need additional
explanations and their own descriptions within the ―operational extensions‖ described in this
profile. The examples provided below the yellow boxes are not meant to be all- inclusive. They
are merely examples of the operational capabilities of a sampling of sensors and are meant to
assist in determining metadata elements necessary to describe certain exploitation capabilities.




       Figure 2-1c. Breakdown Flow of the Raster (Imagery) Geospatial Metadata Level




                                                                                                26
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

The raster core set of metadata elements in Figure 2-1c are used to identify not only imagery data
but non- imagery matrix sets of data as well. Examples of matrix data are the terrain elevation
models and elevation data sets being used extensively by many members of the NSG. To define
the mandatory core (top green box in the chart), certain access and discovery capabilities had to
be derived and limitations placed upon the total raster suite of information. Additional elements
will be defined within the quality, life-cycle, and textual data.

For the geospatial raster core of elements, the division of information was best described using
imagery and the products derived from that imagery or associated by-products of the imagery-
derived data. The second level recommended core of metadata elements (tan box marked ―O‖)
helps in establishing the set of information needed to define the specific images and the exploited
datasets as a result of using that imagery as a source. The organizational extensions (level three,
the yellow boxes) break the imagery further into the primary and secondary image capabilities as
well as the products and associated library activities.

These operational extensions (third level) are not meant to be all inclusive and/or all
encompassing of either the imagery or non- imagery portions of the raster data set elements. They
are examples of the imagery sets used as source and the resultant products and services provided
as a result of the exploitation of the imagery.




             Figure 2-1d. Breakdown Flow of the Vector Geospatial Metadata Level
                                                                                                27
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007


The vector core set of metadata elements in Figure 2-1d is primarily derived from the use of the
vector information rather from the exploitation of the vector source. Vector data, by its nature, is
derived information from a set of known elements as identified within the imagery (raster)
source data. It is, however, a valuable asset to the NSG member organizations and is used by the
war- fighter to identify various valuable pieces of intelligence information. The core set of
mandatory vector elements (in-work) will be derived from the access and discovery requirements
used in the data warehouse, distribution activity, and product derivation processes (top- level in
the chart – green).

The recommended core set (tan box – in-work) of elements further identify the vector
information based upon the feature elements themselves and the products produced as a result of
identifying those features and compiling them into a recognizable and usable view. The
recommended ―core of elements‖ is used to identify the vector data itself based upon the data
dictionary and derived feature descriptions and upon the storage and retrieval process
requirements.

As additional ―operational extensions‖ for the vector core metadata elements are identified, the
attributes and storage information requirements will be refined.


2.2 National System for Geospatial Intelligence Geospatial Metadata Profile

The Metadata Focus Group has developed a National System for Geospatial Intelligence
Geospatial Metadata Profile document (for data discovery and retrieval) which primarily
provides the detailed metadata in the form of data dictionaries and associated XML schemas for
the concept metadata levels outlined above. Those data dictionaries provide the detailed
information behind each metadata component area for each of the data type metadata sets and
their corresponding detailed XML schemas. That detailed metadata represents the metadata
elements recommended for use by NGA, but are general enough so that they could apply to other
sets of data as well. The NSG is strongly encouraged to consult that document.

The NSG profile document establishes and defines a systematic approach to managing,
organizing, and disseminating standards to the development population. It also establishes and
maintains agreement between the customer and the project team on changing standards. The
profile document was developed within the Recommended Core Sub-group. However, see
section 2.4.2 below for more detailed discussions regarding each of the core metadata sets that
were developed within that Sub-group for the purpose of their inclusion in the NSG Metadata
Profile document.


2.2.1 MFG Community

Figures 2-2a and 2-2b categorize the organizations participating within the MFG and also
represent those organizations and activities that would likely have unique enough requirements

                                                                                                   28
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                      August 23, 2007

to warrant their development of their own unique organizational metadata extensions. The
figures also assign these organizations to a level of participation within the MFG.




                               Geospatial Metadata
                              Harmonization Activities
                           -Advanced Geospatial Intelligence Metadata Profile Working
                           Group (AGI MPWG)
                           - American National Standards Institute/International Committee
                           for Information Technology Standards – Geographics Committee
                           (ANSI/INCITS L1)
                           - Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
                           - Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
                           - Dept Homeland Security Community of Interest Metadata
                           Working Group (DHS COI MWG)
                           - Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
                           - Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group (GWG) and
                           Relevant Focus Groups
                           - Modeling & Simulation Community of Interest Metadata &
                           Mediation Working Groups (M&S COI MWG)
                           - Motion Imagery Standards Board Metadata Working Group
                           (MISB MWG)
                           - National Imagery Transmission Format Standard Technical
                           Board (NTB)
                           - National Security Agency (NSA)
                           - NGA Engineering Data Working Group Metadata Focus Group
                           (EDWG MFG)
                           - Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)




                    Figure 2-2a - Metadata Focus group (MFG) Partners


―Partners‖, within the context of the MFG, in Figure 2-2a are organizations that conduct
metadata-related activities and develop metadata materials for use within their own organizations
which they share with the GWG MFG for review/coordination as well as provide input to other
GWG MFG- facilitated activities.




                                                                                                  29
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                     August 23, 2007




                                  Geospatial Metadata
                                 Harmonization Activities
                          - Distributed Common Ground System Multi-Service Execution Team
                          Metadata Working Group (DCGS MET MWG)
                          - DIA MASINT Standards Management & XML CCB
                          - Digital Geospatial Information Metadata Working Group (DGIWG
                          MWG)
                          - JITC XML Multi-Function Lab
                          - Multinational Geospatial Co-Production Group Technical Group
                          (MGCP TG)
                          - NATO Joint ISR Capability Group Metadata Harmonization
                          Technical Support Team (JISRCG MH TST)
                          - GeoScout
                          - NGA Enterprise Engineering (EE)
                          - NGA Image Product Libraries Access Standardization Working
                          Group (IPL ASWG)
                          - National Reconnaissance Agency (NRO) & NRO IMINT Labs
                          (ILABS)




                  Figure 2-2b - Metadata Focus group (MFG) Contributors

―Contributors‖, within the context of the MFG, in Figure 2-2b are organizations that conduct
metadata-related activities within their own organizations and are involved in the GWG MFG on
a monitoring/observation basis to investigate and determine an appropriate area for their own
contribution.

In addition to these specific activities, the MFG also pursues standards that enhance the ability to
manage and preserve the integrity of GEOINT, including the development of standards profiles,
registers of geospatial information, sponsoring of consortia test-beds and standards development
activities, and monitoring the viability and exploitation of commercial standards, all with a focus
on the return-on- investment in standards as measured at the enterprise level.



2.3 Geospatial Metadata Drivers
                                                                                                  30
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                     August 23, 2007


Figure 2-3 outlines the various geospatial metadata input directives and levels of management.
These ―drivers‖ are the force behind numerous metadata collection, management, archival, and
verification tools and instructions, i.e. metadata standards that NGA and other DoD/IC
organizations have been either mandated to use or have chosen to use. Much of the information
collected, stored, and disseminated is driven by the organizations and directives from the data
managers and requirements offices.




                       Geospatial Metadata Drivers
              DoD MWG
                - Defense Discovery Metadata Specification (DDMS)

              IC DMC
               - IC Metadata Standard for Information Security Marking (ISM) is an XML model for capturing the
              components of CAPCO security marking instructions.
               - IC Metadata Standard for Publications (MSP) is a set of XML models for intelligence reporting, which
              includes resource metadata, inline content tagging, and portion-level information security markings.
               - IC Metadata Standard for HTML Documents (HTML) defines resource metadata tags to identify an
              information object.

              ISO/TC211
                - ISO 19101-2 Reference Model for Imagery
                - ISO 19115:2003 Geospatial Metadata
                - ISO 19139 XML Schema Implementation of ISO 19115:2003
                - ISO 19115-2 Extensions for Imagery and Gridded Data
                - ISO 19130 Sensor Data Model for Imagery and Gridded Data

              ISO/IEC JTC1 SC24
                - ISO/IEC 12087-5 Basic Image Interchange Format (BIIF)
                - ISO/IEC 18023-18026, 18041-18042 SEDRIS-based standards

              ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29
                - ISO/IEC 15444JPEG 2000




                           Figure 2-3. Geospatial Metadata Drivers


Throughout the course of time, several metadata standards have been developed to meet broad
community needs, while many organization-specific metadata sets have been developed to
extend, subset and customize these standards to specific needs. This has resulted in many

                                                                                                     31
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

metadata sets that needed to be harmonized as they have had to come together by necessity and
be interoperable. The use of crosswalks is employed in this harmonization process by mapping
equivalencies between metadata sets and metadata standards. (See the section of Part 2 of this
document that details the work of the GWG MFG Metadata Registries and Crosswalks (RX) sub-
focus group and the future of harmonization work.) There are currently twelve different
Geospatial Metadata crosswalk activities on-going within the seventeen distinct metadata
working groups that comprise the MFG membership. These include: standards crosswalks (ISO,
DDMS, ICMWG, etc.), product crosswalks, and crosswalks for Image Product Libraries (IPL),
vector data, imagery data, and sensor data. These crosswalks are being developed to assist in
interoperability and harmonization across these activities and to also promote visibility and
coordination between organizations. The results of these crosswalks will lead to minimum core
metadata sets and data dictionaries for imagery, sensor, and vector metadata for the GEOINT
community.

One of the deficiencies in current intelligence production process is that Geospatial Metadata
production commonly occurs as an added task at the end of a process. The approach is both
cumbersome and questionable as individuals attempt to recall data development methods and
specific values to include in metadata tags. Ensuring that metadata is present in the underlying
reported information and that it is preserved during the entire intelligence production cycle will
reduce the analysts work load and ensure a more accurate intelligence product.

As the concept of geospatial data documentation, or metadata, is introduced to organizations,
efforts generally focus on the documentation of existing geospatial data resources. As a result,
metadata are captured after the data development process is complete. Unfortunately, most
organizations continue this approach as they document new and evolving geospatial data
resources. Metadata production outside of the data development process is both cumbersome and
the results can lack integrity. Those producing the metadata must attempt to re-create stages of
data development and recall specific values. The resulting metadata is often inaccurate and/or
incomplete.

Most organizations have standing geospatial data development methodologies. While some
methodologies are more formal than others, the integration of new processes and technologies is
always disruptive because:
      metadata standards are too extensive and difficult to implement
      metadata production requires time and other resources
      there are few immediate and tangible benefits and fewer incentives to produce metadata
      the lack of guidance for the use, collection, and importance of metadata

One objective of these harmonization efforts is to address the obstacles identified above by
streamlining metadata creation into the workflow process and providing guidance in the
development of policies and procedures that will encourage and enforce metadata production.



                                                                                                 32
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

2.4 Metadata Focus Group (MFG) On-going Activities

Current topical areas of focus for the Metadata Focus Group include:
      Domain Space Handling
      Minimum Geospatial Common/ Recommended Metadata Core
      Taxonomy / semantics / Ontologies
      Quality Metadata
      Feature Metadata
      Metadata Implementation
      Symbology Metadata
      Metadata Registries and Crosswalk Management

   2.4.1 Domain Namespace Handling

This sub-group is developing a strategy for identifying and using namespaces to enhance
interoperability between user communities. In addition, a set of guidelines will be developed for
the implementation of this strategy to ensure that geospatial-enabled information can be shared.
NGA‘s Namespace Manager (NSM) will register all significant data dictionaries, Universal
Modeling Language (UML) models and XML schemas relevant to geospatial intelligence in the
DoD Metadata Registry (MDR—http://metadata.dod.mil). The NSM is the single point of
contact for registration as well as for Governance policies and procedures. The DOD MDR
Concept of Operations document outlines the NSM‘s responsibilities. The DoD MDR is the
―One Stop‖ Shop for publication and subscription for DoD XML metadata. The MDR contains
data services infrastructure for Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES), which promotes
information sharing, interoperability, and software reuse in a secure, reliable, global
environment. At the time of publication (August 2007), DISA maintains registration for more
than 90,000 data elements, 3300 XML schemas, 700 web services and 175 taxonomies in the
registry.

   2.4.2 NSG Recommended Minimum Geospatial Core(s)

This sub- group has developed a table of metadata elements which is the recommended set for
use by NGA, and likely for use or consideration by other DoD Agencies and Activities. It is a
listing of Mandatory and Recommended metadata elements in the form of a core data dictionary.
The elements are intended to describe geospatial datasets, but are general enough so that they
could apply to other sets of data as well. These Mandatory and Recommended core sections are
drawn from the IC Metadata Standard, DDMS, Dublin Core, and is supplemented by ISO 19115
for geospatial metadata. The Mandatory section includes those metadata elements for
compliancy with ISO 19115, and the recommended core contains co nditional and optional
elements from ISO 19115. The Group is also addressing minimum core sets for Vector Core,
Imagery (Raster) Core, and Sensor Core.

                                                                                               33
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                        NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                                 August 23, 2007


            2.4.2.1. NSG Recommended Geospatial Core Data Dictionary
This data dictionary of metadata elements is the recommended set for use by NGA, developed by
the GWG/MFG. It is a listing of Mandatory and Recommended metadata elements in the form of
data dictionary. The elements are intended to describe geospatial datasets, but are general
enough so that they could apply to other sets of data as well. Figure 2-4 lists an excerpt of this
data dictionary.

These Mandatory and Recommended sections are drawn from the Intelligence Community (IC)
Metadata Standard, Department of Defense Discovery Metadata Specification (DDMS), Dublin
Core, and is supplemented by ISO 19115:2003 – Metadata for geospatial metadata. The
Mandatory section includes those metadata elements for compliancy with ISO 19115, and the
recommended core contains conditional and optional elements from ISO 19115.

This is only a minimum list, and is intended to be extended. The following three items (See
Figure 2-4) are examples of subject-specific extensions to this list. Each of the extended lists
(Imagery, Sensor, and Vector) includes additional metadata fields for describing more specific
resources. Additional lists of extended metadata will be proposed as the program matures.




                                         Geospatial Metadata
                                           Core Dictionary
         Row          Name                   Definition            Conditionality   Data Type    Domain     Source
          #
          1    resource title       name by which the cited        Mandatory        Character   Free Text   ISO
                                    resource is known                               String                  19115
                                                                                                            Dublin
                                                                                                            Core
                                                                                                            IC Core
                                                                                                            DDMS

          2    resource reference   reference date for the cited   Mandatory        Date        Date        ISO
               date                 resource                                                                19115
                                                                                                            Dublin
                                                                                                            Core
                                                                                                            IC Core
                                                                                                            DDMS
          3    resource abstract    brief narrative summary of     Mandatory        Character   Free Text   ISO
                                    the content of the                              String                  19115
                                    resource(s)                                                             Dublin
                                                                                                            Core
                                                                                                            IC Core
                                                                                                            DDMS




                                                                                                                      34
                        NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

                          Figure 2-4. Metadata Dictionaries In-work



             2.4.2.2 Imagery Core (In Development)
This list of metadata elements is intended to compliment the NSG Recommended Core list of
elements and provide additional information to facilitate the discovery and retrieval of Imagery-
specific datasets and resources. The elements in the list are drawn from the common elements in
the Image Product Libraries (IPL) and from ISO 19115-2 – Metadata for imagery and gridded
data, which is nearing completion

             2.4.2.3 Sensor Core (In Development)
This list of metadata elements is intended to compliment the NSG Recommended Core list of
elements, and provide additional information to facilitate the discovery and retrieval of Sensor-
specific datasets and resources. The elements in the list are drawn from the work of the GWG
Community Sensor Model Working group (CSMWG) and from ISO 19130 – Sensor model for
imagery and gridded data, which is in development.

The Sensor Core consists of a set of generic metadata elements used to describe the collection
sensor of various items of interest. Sensor metadata can be further defined for any specific sensor
if required for predetermined parameters. There are numerous metadata elements that can be
used to support the requirement for an accurate, easy to use sensor model. For instance, one
would assume that the ―principal point‖ is the point at which the lens axis intersected the center
of the collection array. But that is not always the case. Due to lens distortions, imperfections,
and design flaws, there may be an offset. Thus for an accurate sensor model to have an accurate
center point, offsets must be applied in the x and y direction. The same offset may be applied to
data quality, source applicability, and exploitation capabilities.

             2.4.2.4 Vector Core (In Development)
The Vector Core metadata elements are intended to compliment the NSG Recommended Core
list of elements and provide additional information to facilitate the discovery and retrieval of
Vector-specific datasets and resources. The elements in this list are d rawn from the work on the
Multinational Geospatial Co-production Program (MGCP) Metadata Profile of ISO 19115. The
Vector Core metadata elements provide information in four broad dataset descriptive areas: data
identification, dataset content, source data information (lineage), and data quality. In addition,
the Vector Core metadata set contains elements used to document the metadata itself; drawing on
the elements defined in the set of Recommended Core elements. The Vector Core metadata set
represents the minimum set of metadata elements required to document geospatial- intelligence
vector datasets. Because of this, some elements which are optional in the Recommended Core
(such as the coordinate reference system) are mandatory in the Vector Core.

In the Vector Core, the data identification metadata provides an identifier for the dataset and
documents the producer, geospatial extent, security classification, and any commercial
restrictions placed on the data.


                                                                                                  35
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                     August 23, 2007

Vector datasets contain information about geographic features. Each feature in the dataset is
described by a feature type documented in one or more feature catalogues. The content
information in the minimum Vector Core metadata identifies the feature catalogue (or
catalogues) containing the type definitions for the features in the dataset. The feature catalogue is
required to validate the dataset data and for the exploitation of the dataset.

Lineage information identifies the source material used in the creation of a vector dataset. Source
material can be imagery or other remote sensing data, other vector geospatial datasets, and non-
geospatial datasets. Identification of the source information is required in many cases to
determine the suitability of the data for a particular use. The Vector Core metadata elements
require that, as a minimum, the oldest and newest sources used in creating the dataset be
identified.

A key determiner of a dataset‘s suitability for use is the quality (or accuracy) of the geospatial
values contained in the dataset. Specifically, the Vector Core metadata set requires that the
horizontal accuracy of the data in the dataset be identified. If the dataset contains vertical data,
the vertical accuracy shall also be provided.


      2.4.3 Geospatial Metadata Taxonomies, Semantics, and Ontologies

 This sub- group will identify the taxonomy requirements for discovery metadata catalog
content extensions and the taxonomy requirements for discovery metadata content
extensions. The DoD Discovery Metadata Specification (DDMS) identifies the requirements
for a discovery metadata catalog core augmented with content extensions as needed by each
Community of Interest (COI). More detailed taxonomy guidance is required for discovery
metadata catalog content extensions.

      2.4.4 Quality Metadata

The goal of this sub-group is to recommend to the GEOINT Standards Working Group,
Metadata Focus Group (MFG) a standard protocol (format, process) for documenting the
quality of geospatial data in GEOINT metadata. The GWG MFG may then determine next
steps for incorporating the recommendations into practice across the NSG, and to identify
key relevant international, national, and/or and federal standards impacting the process by
which geospatial data quality are assessed and documented, and identify any outstanding or
conflicting issues for future resolution.
The most difficult, yet most important, characteristic of metadata for geospatial data is
reporting data quality. The dynamics related to reporting geospatial data quality present a
variety of diverse challenges for geospatial feature utilization. Whe n trying to determine the
fitness-of- use of geospatial data for a particular mission, a consistent and standard set of
detailed information is useful, if not necessary, to validate the selection of data that meets
end-user criteria or application requirements. As more accurate geospatial data is
developed, maintained, and shared throughout the DoD, the ability to determine data


                                                                                                       36
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

suitability through current reporting mechanisms is severely deficient and needs
enhancement.
The Quality Metadata Sub-Focus Working Group (QMSWG) recognizes the limitations/absence
of existing data quality reporting protocols. It must focus on a wide array of data quality
characteristics and provide relevant instructions that enable data stewards to collect and convey
more robust quality guidance and facilitate end- user quality awareness. This group will leverage
existing ISO standards, best practice implementations related to quality reporting, and
recommend a framework for data quality assurance planning.

As geographic data become institutionalized across DoD War fighter, Intelligence, and Business
Mission Areas as a decision support mechanism, the rationale for collecting specific geospatial
details becomes increasingly crucial. However, in order to support the concept of quality
reporting in a broad universe of varying geospatial implementations, there is a need to apply the
assessment of data quality towards known mission support requirements and/or product
specifications. Quality reporting can be achieved by extending existing standards and
developing additional guidance for mission specific data (MSD) stewards to craft their own
quality assurance plans that can be easily implemented and sustained.

Data quality has quickly developed as the key dynamic in influencing utilization, and as such,
deserves focused attention in order to support the reuse of this asset by secondary unanticipated
users.

      2.4.5 Feature Metadata
Feature and attribute level metadata will become increasingly more critical as data providers
move from ―product‖ based storage to a more feature centric set of data holdings. More and
more metadata will be required at the feature and attribute level, but as is the case with all
metadata, the collection and population of pertinent information can be time consuming.
Advances in software and automation processes for metadata collection will be critical to the
future viability of feature and attribute level metadata collection.

The Feature Metadata Sub-Group will, understanding the constraints of today‘s production
environments, concentrate on the development of a core set of feature level metadata. In order to
accomplish this, the group is in the process of developing a set of use cases for vector feature
instance metadata. This is the metadata that is use to describe the feature (for example, positional
accuracy of the geometry) and the feature‘s properties (i.e. method used to determine the
positional accuracy). Because there are potentially hundreds of metadata elements that could be
used in describing geospatial data, this sub- group has decided to examine the metadata
requirements for a set of specific use cases or scenarios. It is expected that these use cases will
lead to core metadata profiles that identify the metadata needed by users in these scenario areas.

A number of questions remain to be answered concerning the responsibility of the data producer
versus the data consumer when it comes to feature level metadata. For instance, at the dataset
level, metadata is made available by the data provider co ncerning producer such as point of
contact, address, etc. When addressing feature level metadata, is it required that the provider
identify the producer information for each feature or does that responsibility fall to the data
                                                                                                37
                       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                     August 23, 2007

consumer and their client software to populate information concerning from where data was
received? The Feature Metadata Sub-Group will address these issues and others. It is
anticipated that at the core level feature metadata will concentrate on information that facilitates
discovery and retrieval of feature data from a feature centric database through a net centric
environment. Effective discovery and retrieval will require many facets of metadata specifically
tied to user requirements and use case scenarios. For example, it is anticipated a user will ask
questions such as ―what feature data can be found over my area of interest, that is current to
specific dates of interest, that has the positional accuracy (or other data quality components) I
need‖. The level of detail in feature level metadata tagging must be sufficient to answer such
questions.

A secondary level of feature metadata may be required to provide answers to the quality of the
metadata itself. Described as meta- metadata this will address items such as providing definition
and explanation of procedures and or formulas used in determining data quality results.

A third set of feature, and in some cases attribute, level metadata will be needed to address
security and release restrictions. It is anticipated that where required certain features and/or
certain attributes will only be made available if proper credentials are presented. Software
solutions will be required to address, for example, the issue of PKI certification and access to
data holdings. Metadata at the feature and/or attribute level for security restraints will be critical
to enabling any software solution.

Feature and attribute level metadata will use ISO 19115 with extensions as required. Extensions
to ISO 19115 for security and release restrictions as well as code lists will be required.
Additional extensions to the feature level metadata profile may be required to support legacy
products and predefined fitness for use. Standard metadata elements across the Federal network
may be achieved by coordinating with other initiatives such as the FGDC and efforts developing
the DoD Discovery Metadata Specification.

     2.4.6 Metadata Implementation

Creating a metadata implementation involves determining the metadata information
requirements for the target user community. ISO 19115 provides a framework for organizing
geospatial metadata and can be used with the user community information requirements to create
an implementation profile of the metadata standard. By profiling an accepted standard,
exchanging information within the user community and, if required, with user‘s outside of the
target community can be facilitated. However, in order to affect interchange, an encoding of the
information profile must also be specified. This sub-group will address these issues and provide
guidance to the user communities.

     2.4.7 Symbology Metadata

Symbology consists of a set of graphical symbols and the portrayal rules to visualize these
symbols in a manner meaningful to the user. Portrayal rules can vary by community and are
therefore maintained separately from the symbol itself. Symbology is addressed by ISO
Standard 19115 on metadata and ISO Standard 19117 on Portrayal. Organizations such as
                                                                                                    38
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                               August 23, 2007

the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) have developed detailed web service based
specifications for symbol encoding, symbol management, and symbol portrayal based on
these ISO standards. This effort will identify how symbol dataset metadata will reference
these and other portrayal architecture specifications.

This sub-group will attempt to identify the metadata requirements for symbology and create a
Recommended Metadata Core for this domain.

     2.4.8 Metadata Registries and Crosswalks (RX)
Registries and Crosswalks (RX) is a combined subgroup dealing with the overlapping areas
of Registries and Crosswalk Management, including harmonization and mapping activities.
Because standards have in the past developed independently of each other, they are often
specified differently using specialized terminology, methodology and processes. Besides
providing a useful map between similar items in different systems or standards, performing new
crosswalks and studying existing work is a way to highlight terminological issues and address
their resolution. One way to cut down on the ―clutter‖ of having too many inter-related
crosswalks and mappings is to map each specification or profile against a common standard.
When elements of multiple specifications are mapped to a common standard, the inter-
relationships between those specifications can be more easily identified. This also allows the
common standard to function as an ―exchange standard‖ between all the specifications mapped
to it. This is the approach being taken with the MFG to map the many GEOINT metadata
specifications and profiles, including NATO STANAGs, to a common standard, namely ISO
19115.
Metadata harmonization activities between DCGS and the NGA have been taking place since
early FY 2005. Starting in FY 2006, NGA in coordination with USD(I), established a Metadata
Harmonization activity consisting of a small team of Domain, XML, and Data Modeling
technical experts representing each Service and NGA to harmonize data elements associated with
the data assets available within the NGA and DCGS enterprises. This harmonization effort
focuses on discovery metadata and is consistent with the Net-centric Data Strategy to make data
visible, accessible and understandable. The results of the harmonization efforts will be
registered in the DoD MDR.

The Registries part of the sub-group deals with Registration and Administration practices and
policies. The Registries sub-group interacts with the Namespace and Domain Handling Group to
establish and normalize practices and procedures.




                                                                                               39
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




                                                          40
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
         NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                       August 23, 2007




Part 3 – Geospatial Metadata Issues and Exploitation




                                                                   41
         NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

               Part 3 – Geospatial Metadata Issues and Exploitation

3.0 Metadata

This portion of the Metadata Desk Side Reference will provide general and specific information
about the requirement for capturing, archiving, disseminating, populating, and using the
information referred to in this document as ―metadata‖. Hopefully, when complete, Part 3 will be
most useful and helpful for the explanation of how and why metadata is important.

3.1 General discussion of Metadata – data about data

Metadata has traditionally been used in a variety of ways to increase the utility of certain other
datasets. The assets contained in these datasets are extremely valuable for missions and goals of
the community at large. Certain groups within that community may or may not know of the
existence of certain assets (Data!). Traditionally, DoD organizations have used data
administration and management as the primary tool to define the structure, relationship, content,
use, and exploitation techniques for the databases under their control. Through various ―software
applications‖, the DoD organizations have authorized access to this information even though
other coalition partners were not allowed access. These management techniques and controls
tended to prevent interoperability rather than enhance it.

Metadata requires enhanced, consistent definitions to properly describe the elements or fields
that need to be maintained. These consistent definitions will support planning for new systems,
new system development, and enhanced system operational capabilities. Metadata needs to
describe key attributes and ―define‖ the data elements that can be used in the discovery and
access processes.

There are vocabulary elements that define a ―language‖ or ―cons istent meaning‖ to certain
elements that can, at times, have multiple meanings. Very similar are the ―taxonomic‖ data
elements that will consistently name the fields for use throughout the community. There are
―discovery‖ metadata elements that are used for remote site discovery of information contained
in a central database of related datasets. There are ―structural‖ metadata fields that define the
composition and relationships of various related elements. All of these metadata types are closely
related and can be utilized to maintain control, understanding, and access to the database without
the management authority losing its overall guidance. Various other storage and processing
capabilities are used throughout the industry. Registries, catalogues, and s hared responsibilities
are used to store, discover, provide access, and generally support interoperability.

3.2 Geospatial Metadata – Management

In this instance, geospatial metadata is a key element in sharing information concerning the
collection processes, location, exploitation capabilities, quality, and mission value of data
contained in multiple database structures. The maintenance of geospatial metadata elements
requires consistent definitions and authoritative centralized control of the elements for future use
by disassociated groups and organizations. To aid in the management of metadata, a metadata
                                                                                                  42
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

registry is often utilized. A registry is a file (often a separate system) that contains vital
information about the elements, schemas, or systems that describe the structure, format,
definitions, location and occasionally the content of the data. Certain values or terms are
allowable at any given time. These values are sometimes controlled by ―language‖ or
―vocabulary‖ metadata type environment. Registries can also define the ―relationships‖ between
metadata elements. These relationships can be dependencies, value-added instances, or optional
data choices that rely on external influences.

Registries do not necessarily contain the actual data values but can simply store the format
required for the metadata element that may contain the information needed to interpret the data.
Allowable contents are maintained and described to the user, producer and developer depending
upon the intended use. For instance, ―keyword‖ may be a metadata element that is required for
discovery of an item in a dataset. However, the information contained in the ―keyword‖ element
may not be defined as part of the metadata element but is contained in the ―registry‖ of allowable
values. This situation supports the access and discovery requirements as well as the production
capabilities.

      3.2.1 Metadata Architecture documentation

The NSG Architecture Compliance Document – The National System for Geospatial-Intelligence
(NSG) Architecture Compliance (NAC) document, referred to as the ―NAC‖, serves new and
Legacy/Heritage (L/H) systems that compose the NSG enterprise. The NAC defines the set of
architecture principles and provides implementation direction for complying with the
architectural principles and the Technical Architecture Views for systems that are delivered by
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The body of the NAC and its Appendices
and Addendums are to be used by NGA and by non-NGA organizations that develop systems to
interoperate with NGA-developed systems.

The NAC applies to new systems inserted into the NSG. A ―new system‖ is defined as a system
provided by NGA. NGA L/H segments and associated data will be modified to be compliant
with the metadata, interface service standards, and interoperability requirements described in the
NAC on a case-by-case basis dependent on system functionality and projected retirement date.
New systems that are operational pilots must be compliant with the NAC. (Note: Additional
details on the NAC and a link to the NAC site will be added to a future edition.)

3.3 Architecture Implications

By utilizing tools such as the NAC, metadata architecture can be useful to provide aspects of
metadata that are invaluable to the producer/customer. Principles of architecture to maintain as
much as possible are:

   a. Make metadata visible—Users and applications can discover the existence of data assets
   through catalogs, registries, and other search services. All data assets (intelligence, non-
   intelligence, raw, and processed) are advertised or ―made visible‖ by providing metadata,
   which describes the data asset. Data storage and access need to be generalized to be system

                                                                                                   43
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                    August 23, 2007

   function independent and not singly optimized to support access or update by one given
   system function or system.

   b. Treat data as an asset — Data is an asset that has value to users and to the enterprise and
   is managed accordingly. Data is a valuable corporate resource; it has measurable value. The
   purpose of data is to support users and drive problem solving and decision-support. Accurate,
   timely data is critical to accurate timely solutions and therefore must be managed carefully.
   Data is the foundation of the NSG so we must carefully manage data to know where it is, to
   rely upon its accuracy and to obtain it when and where it is needed.

   c. Make data accessible—Users and applications post data to a ―shared space.‖ Posting data
   implies that (1) descriptive information about the asset (metadata) has been provided to a
   catalog that is visible to the Enterprise, and (2) the data is stored such that users and
   applications in the Enterprise can access it. Data assets are made available to any user or
   application except when limited by policy, regulation, or security. Data is posted before
   processing, so that the raw data can be made available for more than a single processing step
   and new processing can be more easily added.

   d. Make data understandable—Users and applications can comprehend the data, both
   structurally and semantically, and readily determine how the metadata may be used for their
   specific needs.

   e. Establish data as an Enterprise Resource
         1. Critical data is maintained at a single central place; copies may be transferred
            elsewhere as required to support functional and performance requirements.
         2. Data content conforms to enterprise standards with respect to naming, meaning,
            referential integrity, and other validation criteria, as well as format and tagging for
            exchange purposes.
         3. Data content is labeled using enterprise standards for metadata and security labels.
         4. Synchronization of metadata is supported by enterprise tools, on an enterprise-
            managed schedule.
         5. Access privileges are defined according to enterprise policy.
         6. Data are discoverable and searchable using enterprise discovery and retrieval tools.
         7. Data are also available to authorized users for ―native‖ access via file system access,
            COTS-provided APIs, query languages or similar tools.
         8. Data base administration is provided as a centralized service.

3.4 Other Metadata Categories

With the proper controls and management tools, there is the opportunity to eliminate
redundancies and ambiguities in geospatial metadata. However, when attempting to separate
metadata into various categories, there will almost always be some overlap due to the nature of

                                                                                                      44
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

the product and element derivations. The following are examples of some of the various
categories of metadata not already discussed.

     3.4.1 Dublin Core

The Dublin core set of metadata elements is the basic set of core metadata elements captured in
an ISO standard: ISO/IEC 15836. The Dublin core was established by an international
consortium for use with other ISO standards. The core is the basis for Intelligence Community
metadata requirements and the mandatory set of metadata for DDMS/XML schema
implementations.

      3.4.2 Imagery Product Library metadata

Another set of metadata fields that is extremely useful to the customer of geospatial information
is the imagery and geospatial product library descriptive metadata eleme nts. These libraries are
used primarily for specific information that requires a geo-location and description to ensure
proper identification. Metadata is one of the key pieces of information required to identify,
locate, get access to, and distribute the items in the library in a rapid, accurate method. When the
production entity (agency, organization, or corporation) releases a product for use by the
customer, it is automatically distributed to the manager of that particular geographic area of the
earth‘s surface. The item is then placed into the library for access by the customer requiring the
information to be exploited in some manner. If the metadata contents are not properly populated,
the piece of information may not be identifiable or not be accessib le to the customer during his
enquiry process. Therefore, critical information may not be included in the decision making
process that requires all types and pieces of information to be evaluated.

As noted in the previous section, some overlap of metadata is going to occur depending on the
informational requirements for tracking, quality, identification, and location. In this case, ―sensor
name‖ is the same piece of information captured as metadata in the Sensor Modeling. This is an
example of the importance of populating and capturing metadata accurately and consistently. If
the usefulness (quality, exploitation capability) of the dataset is dependent on the name of the
sensor that collected the information, it becomes imperative for interoperability tha t the metadata
is consistently captured.

     3.4.3 MASINT Data Sharing and Metadata require ments

MASINT developers may need to point to the intelligence data dictionary/schemas/models,
however, everything that will provide a consolidated list of MASINT Sensors and MASINT
collection requirements (which both include signatures) is not contained in MASINT community
XML standard docs. To fully describe the processes and procedures (at least to an extent) in
addition to our standard docs, the following would be needed:
   1) the MASINT tags developed for the original NTSDS and MRS metadata requirements
      (collection metadata tags in our common data storage instance),
   2) the tags coming out of the SAR study DO (sensor specific),

                                                                                                  45
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

   3) the tags that NSP believes they need for data sets/signatures,
   4) the tags specifically used in the MASINT products (the style-sheets). A compilation of
      these metadata elements may be a start for the data sharing requirement between the ―---
      INT‖ systems.

As of today, there is limited interoperability and data-sharing requirements across the
intelligence systems world. Each ―---INT‖ system has its own set of elements required to access
the independent data library (or primary data base). There are preliminary discussions of sharing
information between MASINT, SIGINT, IMINT, and HUMINT but currently have not been
assigned for process consideration.

3.5 Testing of metadata requirements

      3.5.1 JITC/ILABS

The testing requirement for metadata has never been fully enforced nor required. The best that
has been available is a ―strong recommendation‖ for testing. There are several reasons for this
lack of testing enforcement of metadata. First and foremost, is the inability of the testers and
testing software to verify the correctness of the metadata with respect to the data itself. Since
many Agencies have been involved with and dedicated to the production of ―products‖, those
organizations are the sole verification authority. If the product is an ―elevation matrix‖, the test
organization can verify that the data is populated correctly and that the metadata fields
(elements) have been populated with data that fits the ―format‖. The content can not be verified
unless the production organization is willing to release the source, the exploitation capabilities,
and the quality requirements for that dataset.

      3.5.2 JFCOM Test Laboratory

The Joint Systems Integration Command (JSIC) aims to improve warfighters' ability to plan and
execute operations by:
     • driving resolution of command and control (C2) interoperability problems
      • providing unbiased evaluations of existing and emerging C2 capabilities, and
      • rapidly integrating technology solutions Located in Suffolk, VA and assigned to the U. S.
         Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM).
JSIC combines the best of infrastructure, methods, and people in a culture of continuous
learning. JSIC efforts to resolve interoperability issues have included a series of Joint
Intelligence Interoperability Board (JIIB) Joint System Baseline Assessments (JSBA) to assess
the ability of existing and prototype command and control (C2) and intelligence systems to
support data identification, exchange, and retrieval, and to execute network enabled operations at
the joint task force (JTF) level.

 JSIC technology assessments are conducted using a recognized and repeatable methodology that
measures maturity, jointness, and warfighter utility. Assessments also identify potential costs
and impacts on doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel and facilities.
                                                                                                   46
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

Using the assessment results, JSIC provides objective recommendations through USJFCOM to
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and other C2 program decision makers on the
effectiveness and implementation of actual C2 systems. This proven and successful process acts
as a forcing function for technology insertion of new capabilities. JSIC efforts to provide short-
term interim solutions for existing C2 problems include the recently-deployed C2 On- The-Move
system, a prototype vehicle- mounted system to provide mobile communications for commanders
during operational engagements/deployments, and Wireless for the Warfighter, providing long-
range wireless access to deployed JTFs.

 JSIC personnel represent all four military services, plus government civilians and contractor
support. These personnel, combined with strong support from both industry and academia, form
an unbiased organization that provides objectives and feasible recommendations to meet joint
needs.

Activated on 17 Dec 1996, the Joint C4ISR Battle Center (JBC) began as a Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff-controlled activity. In 1998, the JBC was realigned under then-U.S. Atlantic
Command, now U.S. Joint Forces Command. The JBC became JSIC on 9 Sep 2004. JSIC
directly supports all the combatant commands by validating selected current and proposed
warfighter C2 systems. This process identifies systems that clearly demonstrate joint utility or
identifies non-interoperable systems for elimination.


3.6 Geospatial Profiles and Access Tools

      3.6.1 Geospatial Knowledge Base

The Geospatial Intelligence Knowledge Base (EL-GKB or GKB) system element provides data
access and data management of NSG data. GKB provides data management capabilities and
federated access capability for the enterprise. These capabilities include the ability to access,
insert, update, delete, index, ingest, import, and export mission, mission management, corporate,
and infrastructure data.

      3.6.2 Federated Access

The Federated Access capability provides functionality for users to discover and retrieve
GEOINT and other Multi-INT data from the mission data management capability, other internal
NGA data sources, and external sources.

      3.6.3 Resource Tasking and Marketplace

The Resource Tasking and Marketplace (EL-RTM or RTM) system element of data management
(including metadata) provides the ability to receive and manage user requirements related to
GEOINT and Multi-INT information needs, and broker products and services to satisfy user
requirements. This enables the establishment of a geospatial intelligence marketplace by
bringing together users and suppliers of information and services, defining roles and
responsibilities of participants, and providing an ordering and order tracking mechanism. The
                                                                                              47
                       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

RTM system element is provided through software only and leverages the processing and storage
provided by system engineering and the data management capabilities of GKB.

      3.6.4 Global Metadata Catalogue (GMC)

This section will be included in a future edition of the Metadata Desk-top Reference Guide as the
GMC becomes mature. There have been several requests for a document such as a Global
Metadata Catalogue or a similar descriptive document detailing the metadata requirements for
various implementations across the NSG.

3.7 Metadata Management and Responsibilities

    3.7.1 Records Management Metadata (i.e. DoD Directive 5015.2/NGA Records
Management docs)

Records management is a requirement established by DoD Directive 5015.2. This directive
requires that all information used or produced by an Agency as ―federal records‖ be documented
in order to identify, locate, retrieve and manage the information. The requirements of this
directive are generalized for all federal records, but must be met for metadata describing
geospatial data as well. It is incumbent upon the developers of any metadata implementation to
ensure that the records management requirements are met in accordance with Directive 5015.2.
[NOTE: Need to determine how this applies to web services. For example, a web-centric
environment could produce datasets dynamically by serving out features (in this case vector
features, imagery features, and gridded features such as elevation models) from different
datasets. From the user‘s standpoint, it might be useful to have a metadata instance presented that
describes the contents of this dynamically created ―dataset;‖ however, the requirements of
5015.2 need to be examined to determine if this dynamically created dataset also needs to be
recorded from a records management point of view.]

      3.7.2 Date Metadata: Date Metadata is the class of metadata elements that captures life-
cycle date information associated with products.
        1. Publication Date
        2. Date Posted
        3. Cutoff Date
        4. Date Valid Until (review cycle? Or obsolescence date)

       3.7.3 Terms of Use Metadata: ―Terms of Use Metadata‖ is the class of metadata elements
that indicate whether legal rights or restrictions are associated with products.
         1. Privacy Act Indicator
         2. Vital Record Indicator
         3. Copyright Indicator

      3.7.4 Electronic Metadata: Electronic Metadata is the class of metadata elements that
provide information needed to electronically process and consume products.
        1. Application Title
                                                                                                 48
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

       2. Data Format
       3. Uniform Resource Locator
     3.7.5 Representation Classes: The list of representation classes is as follows:
       1. Absolute URL
       2. Activity Name
       3. Classified Sensor
       4. Code
       5. Date
       6. Date/time
       7. Product Line Name
       8. Qualified Data Activity Date/time
       9. Qualified Data Activity Date/time Range

      3.7.6 Repeatable Metadata Fields: A data element only needs to repeat if there are
multiple values that need to be captured. The data elements that can support repeatable data
include:
        1. SCI Controls
        2. FGI – Open Source
        3. Dissemination Controls
        4. Releasability
        5. Document Identifier
        6. Country
        7. Subject Code
        8. Intelligence Discipline Type
        9. Point of Contact
        10. Intelligence Sub-description
        11. Tasking Requirement
        12. Sensor
        13. Product Line
        14. Date-time Point
        15. Analysis Tool
        16. Activity Recording
        17. Keyword
        18. Non-Intelligence Community Markings


3.8 Classes of General Metadata

     3.8.1 Introduction

The basic definition of metadata is ―data about data‖, so any time you have descriptive
information about something you effectively have metadata. For that reason metadata comes in
many different forms and flavors. One person‘s metadata is another person‘s data. Different


                                                                                               49
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

developers approach data differently, so their implementations can be drastically different in
what they call metadata.

This can often lead to confusion as to what exactly metadata is, and how it should be used. The
following definitions are an attempt to explain the terminology that will be used in this
document.

      3.8.2 Metadata Metadata: type of metadata that describes other metadata. A metadata
record can be treated as a resource (or data), in which case it would have its own metadata. Just
like data is updated and maintained, so must metadata be updated and maintained. The
information documenting when the metadata is updated and maintained is an example of meta-
metadata, as it is information about the metadata record.

       3.8.3 Security Metadata: class of metadata elements required to fully specify the
classification and controls through the entire information lifecycle.
             1. Classification
             2. Owner/Producer
             3. SCI Controls
             4. Special-Access-Required Program Identifier
             5. Foreign Government Information
             6. Dissemination Controls
             7. Releasability
             8. Non-Intelligence Community Markings
             9. Declassification Manual Review Indicator
             10. Declassify On

      3.8.4 Product Metadata: class of metadata elements that provides identification, content
description, and publisher information about products.
             1. Title
             2. Document Identifier
             3. Summary
             4. Keyword
             5. Country
             6. Subject Code
             7. Agency
             8. Point of Contact
             9. Intelligence Discipline Type
             10. Product Line

3.9 Types of Specific Metadata

Extension Metadata (MASINT): Extension Metadata is the class of optional metadata elements
that may be used to specify additional metadata for cataloging and discovery in a Community-
standard way. All of the extension elements listed below originated with the MASINT
community. However, these elements have applicability to more than one intelligence discipline.
                                                                                                  50
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

      1. Intelligence Sub-discipline Type
      2. Tasking Requirement
      3. Sensor
      4. Report Phase
      5. Date-time Range
      6. Date-time Point
      7. Analysis Tool
      8. Activity Recording

3.10 Profiles of Standards

   3.10.1 Introduction

Most metadata standards are generalized for broad applicability. As can be seen by the various
types of metadata canvassed in this document so far, implementing a complete set of metadata
could result in a metadata instance rivaling the size of the data itself. The reality of data
production is that there is a finite amount of time available to document the dataset produced;
however, it is important from a regulatory as well as usability standpoint that the dataset be
properly documented with adequate metadata.

For the interchange of information, it is important that the parties in the exchange agree on the
organization and encoding of the data. The organization and encoding of the metadata exchanged
is just as important. Profiles are developed to meet the requirements for a particular use within a
particular user community. In order to simplify production and allow the data produced to be
able to serve the broadest set of user communities, it is important for different user communities
to reuse profiles and extensions to standards whenever possible.

In order to be adopted for inclusion in the DISR, the profile must be documented. According to
DoD Manual 4120.24, there are several forms of documentation that could be used. An
appropriate format must be chosen in the profile and it should provide guidance on the use of the
format in the documentation of a metadata profile.

   Profiling/Extending Metadata – Form of profiling documentation
   Reference: DoD Manual 4120.24 – see C.5.2.7-10, i.e. Defense Specification, Guide
   Specification, Defense Standard, Defense Handbook

The NSG metadata standard will be a profile of the ISO 19139 and 19139 Part 2 (metadata
implementation specifications for geospatial information and imagery respectively) with
appropriate extensions to account for geospatial intelligence. These comprehensive
implementation specifications provide conformant profiles (defined in UML) and XML schemas
of the ISO 19115 and 19115 Part 2. These profiles are meant to enhance interoperability by
providing a common base for describing, validating and accessing metadata about geographic,
imagery and gridded data between coalitions while maintaining a high degree of interoperability
with other communities complying with the ISO 19139 and 19139 Part 2 technical
specifications. For example, a DGIWG profile is required to more strictly enforce rules required
for the NATO military coalition environment as well as to standardize extensions that apply only
                                                                                               51
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007

to this special user community. A design schema is required to detail the infrastructure required
to support the capture and storage of metadata. The design schema may contain several profiles
that define metadata for cataloguing, search and retrieval, and exploitation.

      3.10.2 Standards “Compliant” vers us “Conformance”

There is still some open thoughts on the difference between ―being compliant‖ to a standard and
―conforming‖ to a standard. A developer can conform to a standard but not be interoperable to
the fullest extent. The other developer can be compliant to the standard but not fulfill all of the
contractual obligations as specified by the customer. There has always existed a fine line
between the two ideas. There has been no finite definition for either term when discussing
standards, metadata adherence, or product orientation. In the past several years, the most difficult
aspect of data and metadata processing has been the testing for compliancy to standards. As
stated above, to test for compliancy is to test for format, not content. There is no way of
knowing, for compliancy testing, if the data is good, bad or indifferent. However, the format and
structure can be tested thoroughly provided a good test set and test procedure has been written
and implemented.

How can compliance be confirmed with geospatial datasets? With feature data? With
dynamically generated datasets (i.e. features returned from a query to a Web Features Service)?

What it means to have standards compliant metadata:
     - Benefits of compliancy
     - Consequences of non-compliancy
     - Compliance with Records Management Requirements (5015.2)
     - Harmonization
     - Data transformation (legacy-to-minimum core)

      3.10.3 Profiling/Extending Metadata – In work.

      3.10.4 Management Responsibilities for general metadata controls

This section is in work for enforcement procedures and management responsibilities. The DISR
Online mandates certain IT standards and the procedures for control are fairly well established.
However, the relationships to the multiple standards and standards organizations are being
developed as part of the NAC.


3.11 Web Services

Web services provide the capability to serve datasets, both static datasets akin to the products of
today and dynamically- generated datasets built on demand in response to the query of a data
consumer. The metadata requirements for web services cover at least two areas: metadata
describing the services and metadata describing the data. The service metadata provides
information about what types of services are available to a data consumer. The data metadata

                                                                                                 52
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                  August 23, 2007

provides information about the data that is available and the data that was returned in response to
a user‘s query.

For a service that serves traditional datasets, the metadata returned in response to a user‘s query
identifies the data that matches the user‘s query parameters. This metadata may be an aggregated
set of metadata for all matching datasets, or could be the metadata for each of the datasets
matching the user‘s query. This metadata can then be used to further evaluate if the datasets
identified are suitable for the user‘s purpose and to locate the dataset for retrieval.

For a service that serves dynamically- generated datasets, the information returned from the
service could be thought of as a product. A single instance of metadata is returned desc ribing the
dataset produced with information provided to the user for locating and acquiring the dataset.

   3.11.1 Data Representation – WEB specific

   3.11.2 MD TAGS vs. Metadata

3.12 User Requirements

Metadata for geospatial data is complex and can consist of many individual elements. For
example, the ISO 19115 metadata standard is composed of more than 300 elements. In addition,
there are multiple levels of use for metadata, among these are:

   a. Discovery – searching catalogues in order to locate data
   b. Exploration – determining if a subject dataset is suitable for the user‘s application
   c. Exploitation – information needed in addition to the data in order to make use of the
      dataset

The metadata sets needed by a data consumer need to be evaluated to determine the complexity
level required by a user. The NSG Recommended Core (aka NSG Minimum Core), discussed in
Part 2, provides a set of metadata elements that meet the broad user requirements identified for
the GEOINT community. The requirements addressed by the NSG Recommended Core are
aimed primarily at cataloguing and discovery for information across the NSG. For a particular
user community, the information required by data consumers for exploration (evaluation) and
exploitation also needs to be identified. The additional information elements (or more specific
information elements) can often be identified from existing legacy systems currently in use by
the target community.

3.13 Encoding

ISO 19139 provides a standard XML schema implementation of the ISO 19115 metadata
standard and provides a common language for exchange of metadata. XML is a good encoding
for common exchange because it is an open standard and open source tools are available from
multiple sources for parsing, validating and transforming XML encodings. Additional issues
need to be addressed:

                                                                                                 53
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                August 23, 2007

   a.    Legacy encodings – Support is needed to transform from XML to legacy encodings
        while legacy XML- ignorant software is still in use. There is also a requirement to
        transform legacy encoding formats into XML encodings. In the arena of tactical message
        handling, the Common Message Format (CMF) being developed by the Integrated
        Broadcast Services (IBS) program office is pioneering this two-way transformation
        process.

   b. Tactical encoding requirements – The ISO 19139 XML schemas are very overhead
      intensive in order to provide a simple mapping to the ISO 19115 standard. Tactical data
      links are very sensitive to excessive overhead, so a compact encoding for metadata is
      required. IBS is developing a binary format for CMF that addresses this issue for tactical
      intelligence data links and broadcasts. In addition, XML responds well to simple data
      compression algorithms.

   c. Encoding extensions – User community requirements will inevitably require extensions
      to the standard. Guidance should be developed to provide a consistent mechanism for
      development of extensions.


3.14 XML Sche ma reuse capabilities -- The XSD Conce pt

As mentioned in Part 2, Item N, Metadata Registries, one of the primary methods of utilizing the
XML technology and capability is the ―XSD – XML Schema definition‖ language and it‘s
associated concepts.

Using XSD to define the encoding of metadata exchanged by a target community allows for the
reuse of existing schema (such as the schema defined by ISO 191139). In addition, XSD allows a
community to define community-specific elements to meet their own specialized requirements.
The reuse of XML schema definitions provides a more consistent encoding for information
exchange. XSDs defined within their own namespace reduce the risk of naming conflicts when
several schemas from different developers are brought together. The base XML schemas
developed for general purposes (such as the geospatial metadata XML schemas) form one part of
the encoding scheme for information interchange. For example, a cataloguing service may return
metadata describing a number of datasets that meet the requirements of a query. The metadata
can be encoded using ISO 19139 but will be encapsulated in the response structure (also encoded
using XML) defined for the cataloguing service. The obvious advantage of using a single
encoding for geospatial metadata is that the information can be decoded by a receiving system
once it is aware of the way in which the metadata is encapsulated.

3.15 Crosswalk Manage ment and Entity Mapping

   3.15.1 Crosswalk Manage ment Basics

A crosswalk is a record of the decisions made about the definitions of data elements from
different standards, representations, or models and a record of the mapping of these data
elements between standards
                                                                                              54
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                   August 23, 2007


Crosswalks and mappings are useful tools that contribute significantly to various metadata
efforts. They help the harmonization effort by showing where standards have points of
commonality and where they diverge. They help to show conformance by showing where a
specification or profile is conformant to a standard.

There are many standards and specifications, so there are many crosswalks. To make matters
worse, each of the standards and specifications have their own leve l of abstraction, so what is
elemental to one standard may be an aggregate entity in another. This can lead to a confusing
environment where everything is mapped to everything else at varying levels of abstraction. That
sort of environment is not the most useful environment.

One way to cut down on the ―clutter‖ of having too many inter-related crosswalks and mappings
is to map everything against a common standard. When elements of multiple specifications are
mapped to a common standard, the inter-relations between those specifications are drawn out as
the individual elements are mapped to a common element. This also allows that common
standard to function as an ―exchange standard‖ between all the specifications mapped to it.
However, experience has shown us that the exchange standard, or hub, can not be developed in
the abstract, but must be created by accretion of the elements as each new standard, or spoke, is
added to the wheel. This makes it essential that the information about the entities, elements,
attributes, notations (domains) be kept in the form of data, and not as data structures.

   3.15.2 A Scalable Approach to Crosswalk Manage ment

The approach to data harmonization that works at all scales is based on reducing things to the
essence of data modeling, as shown in Figure 3-1. When implemented in a relational database,
this is a three table solution. So far in modeling the structure of databases, DTDs, standards, etc.,
only two tables, attributes and relationships have been needed. The relationship modifier table
had not been invoked, although some of the fields in the relationship table could be encoded as
modifiers in a more normalized form of the database.




                                                                                                  55
                      NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                    August 23, 2007


                             The Essence of Data Models
                        Named Attribute of Something
                        Attribute A

                                                 Named Attribute of Relationship


                   Named Relationship Between Attributes


                                                  Modifiers to Named Relationship

                                                 Named Attribute of Modifier
                        Attribute B
                       Named Attribute of Something
                                                                               20


                           Figure 3-1. The Essence of Data Models

Figure 3-2 shows the power of this method in harmonizing across disparate data models. Down
at the bottom of the screen shot one sees that the TGTID field in the NITF 2.0 Image Sub-header
identifies three separate metadata elements in the IC MSP Information Pool DTD. So the
internals of a single field in an image transmission data header have been linked to data elements
in a finished intelligence product.

Note that the selected record in TBL_ATTRIBUTES is number 39131 out of 39517. It would
require more that one spreadsheet to represent these attributes in Excel workbooks.




                                                                                                56
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                August 23, 2007




       Figure 3-2. Crosswalk between NITF 2.0 TGTID and IC-MSP InfoPool DTD

It is also important to note that the attributes and relationships from the IC MSP Information
Pool DTD module were not entered by hand, but were entered into the JADB by a portion of the
JADB that reads text files according to parsing instructions that are also contained in the JADB
as attributes and relationships. In the case of an XML DTD, we manually entered the Extended
Bacus-Naur Form (EBNF) productions from the XML standard, as shown in Figure 3-3. The
EBNF production named ―extSubset‖ is the production that represents an external XML DTD
file.




                                                                                              57
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
        NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                            August 23, 2007




Figure 3-3. Partial View of XML 1.0 Standard EBNF Production Tree




                                                                        58
        NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007

For each of the productions, parsing actions were defined that would take place when a
production was matched to the incoming DTD. Shows the way this is done for the Name of an
Attribute Definition. Guidance on how to read the screen in Figure 3-4 is listed below:
      The ―AttDef Has One Name – Entity Name‖ data tells the parser that there is one and
       only one instance of a Name at this portion of a valid DTD.
      The ―Attribute B Units or Modifier: Relation.Defines – Defines‖ data tells the parser that
       new relationship row generated for this attribute name should say that the parent attribute,
       in this case the element to which that attributes apply, ―Defines‖ the named attribute.
      The ―A_title: EBNF.AttDef‖ data tells the parser that the attribute to be produced for this
       new parsing level should have the data type of EBNF.AttDef.
      The ―A_ControlType: Start New Parsing Level & Data Type‖ creates a new relationship-
       attribute pair with the ―A‖ side of the relationship being the attribute from the previous
       production level, and the ―B‖ side of the relationship being the attribute to be produced
       by this and subsequent productions at this level.
      The ―B_Title: XML_attribute: data tells the parser to assign ―XML_attribute‖ to the
       ―type‖ field of the attribute to be created for this level.
      The ―B_ControlType: Text to Attribute Code at Current Level‖ data tells the parser to put
       the text from the incoming DTD returned by the ―Name – Entity Name‖ production as
       the ―code‖ field of the attribute to be produced for this level.




                                                                                                59
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                 August 23, 2007




       Figure 3-4. Parsing Actions for Matching the Name in an Attribute Definition

Once all the data that represents an XML DTD is set up properly, one simply points the JADB
data-driven parsing function at an XML DTD and new attributes and relationships are added to
the database that accurately and completely represent the subject DTD. Furthermore, the JADB
data-driven parser can use the data entered about the DTD to parse XML documents based on
that particular DTD. If, as a separate effort, the DTD is mapped to another data format, then a
data-driven translator should be able to be created that will convert from the incoming XML
document to the other format.

In summary, this approach allows the representation of any kind of data structure or format in a
single database and links any part of any structure to any part of any other structure. It allows
standards to be encoded so that they can actually do what they were intended to do, for example
having the XML Language specification actually parse XML DTDs and Documents.




                                                                                                60
                     NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                       August 23, 2007

                         Appendix A


                     Terms of Reference




                      EDITORS NOTE:
“Terms of reference portion”, Appendix A, is under development




                                                                   61
       NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          62
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                          August 23, 2007

                                       Appendix B

                            Related Standards Information

Related Standards Information

The GWG Metadata Focus Group (GWG – MFG) is committed to using voluntary
consensus standards, such as those developed through ISO and ANSI, consistent with
OMB Circular A-119. The GWG – MFG also tracks other standards activities that may
not be considered as voluntary consensus standards.

Metadata Standards, an Ove rvie w

There are many metadata standards, developed by different organizations for differe nt
purposes. The purpose of this Overview is to present a list of metadata standards and
specifications that are directly involved with geospatial metadata.

The standards are categorized and presented in a manner intended to explain and
familiarize the reader with those standards, to facilitate understanding and eventual
implementation of those standards.




                                                                                         63
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          64
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                          August 23, 2007


                                     APPENDIX C

                        Legislation and Guidance on Standards


Note: This appendix may not be totally complete. If there are additional documents
and/or organizations that s hould be included or deleted, please specifically submit
comme nts appropriately using the comment form at the end of this document.

Public Law 104 – 113
Sec. 12) Directs NIST to: (1) coordinate Federal, State, and local technical standards and
conformity assessment activities; and (2) report to the Congress regarding
implementation within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
Directs Federal agencies and departments to use technical standards developed by
voluntary consensus bodies, unless impractical or inconsistent with applicable law.
(Requires an explanatory report to the Office of Management and Budget.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d104:HR02196:|TOM:/bss/d104query.html|

OMB Circular A-16 – Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data
Activities
This revised Circular August 2002) describes the responsibilities of Federal agencies with
respect to coordination of those Federal surveying, mapping, and related spatial data
activities described in paragraph 2, below. (Spatial data are geographically referenced
features that are described by geographic positions and attributes in an analog and/or
computer-readable (digital) form.) It rescinds and replaces Circular No. A- l6 dated 1990
which replaced the May 6, l967 version. The revised Exhibits will remain in effect until
replaced pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Circular.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016.html

OMB Circular A-119 (Revised 1998), on Federal Participation in the Development and
Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities
Revised OMB CircularA-119 establishes policies on Federal use and development of
voluntary consensus standards and on conformity assessment activities. Pub. L. 104-113,
the ―National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, ‖ codified existing
policies in A-119, established reporting requirements, and authorized the National
Institute of Standards and Technology to coordinate conformity assessment activities of
the agencies. OMB is issuing this revision of the Circular in order to make the
terminology of the Circular consistent with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, to issue guidance to the agencies on making their reports to
OMB, to direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue policy guidance for conformity
assessment, and to make changes for clarity.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html

                                                                                        65
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                           August 23, 2007

Department of Defense (DoD)
DoD Directive 5105.60, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 11 November 1996
This Directive: (1) Establishes the NIMA within the Department of Defense consistent
with the authorities and duties of the Secretary of Defense and the Direc tor of Central
Intelligence (DCI) under Title 10, United States Code; Title 50, United States Code;
Executive Order 12333, December 4, 1981; and National Imagery and Mapping Agency
Act of 1996. (2) Prescribes the NIMA‘s mission, organization, responsibilities, functions,
relationships, and authorities, pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense
by Section 113 and Chapters 8 and 22 of Title 10, United States Code, and in accordance
with Title 10, United States Code; Title 50, United States Code; National Imagery and
Mapping Agency Act of 1996.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/510560.htm

DoD Instruction 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program, 18 June 1998
This Instruction implements a Defense Standardization Program (DSP) as required by
Sections 2451 and 2452 of title 10, United States Code, assigns responsibilities, and
prescribes procedures; Designates the Director, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), as the
DoD Executive Agent for the DSP; Authorizes continued publication of DoD 4120.24-M,
―Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Policies and Procedures, ‖ current edition,
authorized by this Instruction, consistent with DoD 5025.1-M, ―DoD Directives System
Procedures,‖ August 1994, authorized by DoD Directive 5025.1, June 24, 1994, to
provide guidance and procedures for the DSP.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/412024.htm

DoD 4120.3 – M, Defense Standardization Program Policies and Procedures, July 1993
This Manual establishes the policies and procedures to achieve the standardization
objectives required by Pub. L. No. 82-436 (1952), DoD Directive 5000.1, and DoD
Instruction 5000.2.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/41203m.htm

DoD Instruction 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program, 18 June 1998

DoD Instruction 4630.8, Procedures for Compatibility, Interoperability, and Integration
of Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C#I) Systems, 18 November
1992
This Instruction assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures to achieve
compatibility and Interoperability of a consolidated, DoD-wide, global C3I infrastructure.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/46308.htm


National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NIMA PD 2000, Policy Directive for International and Foreign Affairs, 3 April 1998

                                                                                          66
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                         August 23, 2007

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Toolkit for New
Standards Executives
NGA Record Metadata Standard Electronic Records Management (DRAFT)

NGA Technical Standard and Guide Electronic Records Management (DRAFT)

NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST developed the NTTAA Plan for Implementation in accordance with the provisions
of Public Law 104-113. The completed plan was transmitted to Congress on June 7,
1996. It envisaged broad cooperation among governmental agencies and between
government and the private sector in developing and implementing strategic standards
and conformity assessment policies. As one might expect, the plan has evolved since t his
initial draft. Still, this document may serve as a primer in gaining a basic understanding
of the basis for Congressional passage of the Act and NIST‘s subsequent role in its
implementation.
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/nttaa/toolkit.htm

NISO – National Institute of Standards Organization
This organization is the representative to the development of numerous documents and
standards often including the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) – many
FIPS have been withdrawn when there are equivalent voluntary consensus standards.
http://www.niso.gov/

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

National Standards Strategy of the United States
http://www.ansi.org/Public/nss.html

NSSN - A National Resource for Global Standards – AKA the Standards Mall
http://www.nssn.org/

Inte rnational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) – ANSI-
accredited standards development organization INCITS Technical Committee L1,
Geographic Information Systems (password protected) – NGA, FGDC and various
member agencies are represented on L1 INCITS, as NCITS
http://gsvaresa07.er.usgs.gov/QuickPlace/ncits_l1/Main.nsf (password protected)


Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
Industry consortium aimed at growing interoperability for technologies involving spatial
information and location. Many NSG members are principal members of the Open
Geospatial Consortium (OGC). The OGC News features interesting articles on the
relationship among standards activities.

                                                                                        67
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                         August 23, 2007

http://www.opengis.org/

Object Manage ment Group (OMG)
A not- for-profit consortium that produces and maintains computer industry specifications
for interoperable enterprise applications, including specifications for Unified Modeling
Language (UML), the conceptual schema language used for ISO TC 211 standards.
http://www.omg.org/

Joint Steering Group on Spatial Standardization and Related Interoperability
This group of representatives of Spatial Standards Setting Organizations (including ISO
and OGC) share information in order to manage coordination activities better.
http://www.jspspatial.org/


Inte rnational Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO Technical Committee (TC) 211, Geographic Information/Geomatics – ANSI
accredits the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO TC 211
http://www.isotc211.org/

Common Terrorism Information Sharing Standards (CTISS)

     The standards group previously referred to as CISS (Common Information Sharing
Standards) and IISS (Intelligence Information Sharing Standards) has been renamed to
CTISS (Common Terrorism Information Sharing Standards).

     1.6.1 There are six Common Terrorism Information Sharing Standards (CTISS)
proposed by the Office of the DNI in response to Executive Orders 13356 and 13388 and
pursuant to the Interim Implementation Plan for the Information Sharing Environment.

      a. CTISS for Resource Metadata: Metadata Element Set – this is a superset of
International Standard ISO 15836, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set and defines
logical elements in an implementation- neutral form.

      b. CTISS for Resource Metadata: Application Profile for Discovery – adapted from
the Defense Discovery Metadata Specification (DDMS). This adaptation incorporates the
IC ISM approach to tagging security marking abbreviations. This standard is available for
use when applicable, but it is not mandated, since its applicability within the IC is being
investigated as part of the IC Enterprise Architecture activity.

      c. CTISS for Information Security Markings: XML Implementation – adapted from
the IC Metadata Standard for Information Security Markings, based on CAPCO. This
standard will supplant the IC ISM, and is to be adopted by all applicable departments and
agencies.


                                                                                        68
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                      August 23, 2007

      d. CTISS for Tearline Applications: Messaging Implementation – adapted from the
Technical Standard for Automated Processing and Cross-Domain Dissemination of
Tearlines. This standard deals with text (untagged) documents.

       e. CTISS for Tearline Applications: XML Implementation – adapted from the model
that approved by the ICML Panel in October 2004. This standard is for metadata-enabled
(XML) documents.

      f. Terrorist Watchlist Person Data Exchange Standard – adapted from the IC
Terrorist Watchlist Person Data Exchange Standard (TWPDES)

      g. IISS Global Justice Model - adapted from the Global Justice XML Data Model.
This model is being promulgated by the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs throughout the
law enforcement community down to the state and local levels. TWPDES data can be
used to feed GJXDM and vice versa.




                                                                                    69
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          70
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                          August 23, 2007

                                      APPENDIX D


                                  Emerging Standards


 ISO 19101-2 Geographic Information – Reference Model – Part 2: Imagery
Technical specification that will define a reference model for standardization for
geographic imagery and will be independent of any application development method or
technology implementation approach.
 ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information – Metadata – Part 2: Extensions for Imagery and
Gridded Data
This standard is complimentary to and will extend ISO 19115:2003 Geographic
information – Metadata by defining additional metadata elements to support the
description of geographic imagery including gridded data. Together with ISO 19130
Geographic Imagery – Sensor and Data Models for Imagery and Gridded Data, it will
support the documentation of the collection process and post-collection processing used
in the creation, enhancement and maintenance of geographic imagery datasets. With ISO,
these extensions will provide a comprehensive model for the specification of metadata
appropriate for cataloguing, discovery, determining suitability for use and exploitation of
geospatial imagery.
 ISO 19123 Geographic Information – Schema for Coverage Geometry Functions
Will define a standard conceptual schema for describing the spatial and geometric
characteristics of coverage‘s to increase the ability of geographic information to be
shared among applications.
 ISO 19130 Geographic Imagery – Sensor and Data Models for Imagery and Gridded
Data – (In work) Will specify the content of sensor models describing the physical and
geometrical properties of each kind of remote sensing instrument that produces imagery.




                                                                                         71
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          72
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                         August 23, 2007

                                      APPENDIX E

ISO 19115 – Geographic information - Metadata Normative and Informative
References (those standards used in the development of the standard)

      ISO 639 (all parts), Code for the representation of names of languages

      ISO 646, Information technology – ISO 7-bit character set for information
       exchange

      ISO 690:1996, Documentation — Bibliographic references — Content, form and
       structure

      ISO 3166 (all parts), Codes for the representation of names of countries and their
       subdivisions

      ISO 4217:1995, Codes for the representation of currencies and funds

      ISO 8859 (parts 1 to 15), Information technology ― 8 bit single byte coded
       graphic character sets
      ISO 8601:1987, Data elements and interchange formats — Information
       interchange — Representation of dates and times

      ISO 8879, Information processing ― Text and office systems ― Standard
       Generalized Markup Language (SGML)

      ISO/IEC 10646-1, Information technology ― Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
       Character Set (UCS) ― Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane

      ISO/IEC 11179 (all parts), Information technology ― Specification and
       standardization of data elements

      ISO 11180, Postal addressing

      ISO/TS 19103: -Geographic information – Conceptual schema language

      ISO/TS 19104: -Geographic information – Terminology

      ISO 19106 – Geographic information – Profiles

      ISO 19107 – Geographic information – Spatial schema

      ISO 19108: 2002 – Geographic information – Temporal schema

                                                                                        73
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                         August 23, 2007

      ISO 19109 – Geographic information – Rules for application schema

      ISO 19110 – Geographic information – Methodology for feature cataloguing

      ISO 19111 – Geographic information – Spatial referencing by coordinates

      ISO 19112 – Geographic information – Spatial referencing by geographic
       identifiers

      ISO 19113: 2002 – Geographic information – Quality principles

      ISO 19114 – Geographic information – Quality evaluation procedures

      ISO/TS 19116:
      Geographic information – Positioning Services

      ISO 19117 – Geographic information – Portrayal

      ISO 19118 – Geographic information – Encoding

      ISO/TS 19119: Geographic information – Services

      ISO/TS 19123: Geographic information – Schema for coverage geometry and
       functions

      ISO 23950:1998, Information and documentation — Information retrieval
       (Z39.50) — Application service definition and protocol specification

      ISO/TR 19121: 2000:1998, Geographic information- Imagery and gridded data

      IETF RFC 1738, Uniform Resource Locators (URL)

      IETF RFC 2056, Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50

Content Standard for Geospatial Metadata Federal Geographic Data Committee, June 8,
1994, Washington DC. This US Federal standard was initially used for the first version of
ISO 19115 and the list reflects those standards referred to in the original development by
the Federal Geographic Data Committee, ensuring compliancy with all.
      American Congress on Surveying and Mapping and American Society of Civil
       Engineering, 1978, Definitions of surveying and associated terms: Falls Church,
       Virginia, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.



                                                                                       74
                 NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                    August 23, 2007

   American National Standards Institute, 1975, Representations of universal time,
    local time differentials, and United States time zone reference for information
    interchange (ANSI X3.51-1975): New York, American National Standards
    Institute.

   American National Standards Institute, 1986, Representation for calendar date
    and ordinal date for information interchange (ANSI X3.30-1985): New York,
    American National Standards Institute.

   American National Standards Institute, 1986, Representations of local time of day
    for information interchanges (ANSI X3.43-1986): New York, American National
    Standards Institute.

   American National Standards Institute, 1986, Representations of Geographic
    Point Locations for Information Interchange (ANSI X3.61-1986): New York,
    American National Standards Institute.

   American National Standards Institute, 1990, Dictionary for information systems
    (ANSI X3.172-1990): New York, American National Standards Institute.

   Anglo-American Committee on Cataloguing of Cartographic Materials, 1982,
    Cartographic materials: A manual of interpretation for AACR2: Chicago,
    American Library Association.

   ASTM Section D18.01.05, various dates, Spatial metadata Content Standard for
    geographic information systems, catalogs, and data exchange (drafts).

   Clark, Suzanne, Larsgaard, Mary, and Teague, Cynthia, 1992, Cartographic
    citations: A style guide: Chicago, American Library Association, Map and
    Geography Roundtable.

   Cogan, Christopher, and Edwards, Thomas, Jr., 1994 (February), Metadata
    standards for Gap analysis: Moscow, Idaho, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
    Research Unit, University of Idaho.

   Department of Commerce, 1975, Tide and Current Glossary, Special Publication
    228: Washington, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, National Ocean Survey.

   Department of Commerce, 1989 (January), State Plane Coordinate System of
    1983 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Manual NOS NGS 5):
    Silver Spring, Maryland, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Coast and Geodetic
    Survey.
                                                                                      75
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                     August 23, 2007


   Department of Commerce, 1992, Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) (Federal
    Information Processing Standard 173): Washington, Department of Commerce,
    National Institute of Standards and Technology.

   Department of Defense, 1981, Glossary of mapping, charting, and geodetic terms
    (4th ed.): Washington, Department of Defense, National Imagery and Mapping
    Agency.

   Department of Defense, 1990, Military specification ARC Digitized Raster
    Graphics (ADRG) (MIL-A-89007): Philadelphia, Department of Defense, and
    Defense Printing Service Detachment Office.

   Department of Defense, 1992, Vector Product Format (MIL-STD-600006):
    Philadelphia, Department of Defense, And Defense Printing Service Detachment
    Office.

   Dodd, Susan, 1982, Cataloging machine-readable files. Chicago, American
    Library Association.

   Hansen, Wallace, 1991, Suggestions to authors of the reports of the United States
    Geological Survey (7th ed.): Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.

   Li, Xia, and Crane, Nancy, 1993, Electronic style: A guide to citing electronic
    information: Westport, Connecticut, Meckler Publishing.

   Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 1988, USMARC format for
    bibliographic data: Washington, Library of Congress, and Cataloging Distribution
    Service.

   Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 1988, USMARC code list
    for realtors, sources, and description conventions: Washington, Library of
    Congress, and Cataloging Distribution Service.

   (no author), 1994, The Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Report
    to the Information Infrastructure Task Force (May 2, 1994).

   Patriaes, Karen, 1991 (April), National Library of Medicine recommended
    formats for bibliographic citations: Bethesda, Maryland, U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,
    National Library of Medicine.

   Snyder, John, 1987, Map projections: A working manual (U.S. Geological
    Survey Professional Paper 1395): Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.
                                                                                      76
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                    August 23, 2007


   Westbrook, J. H., and Grattidge, W., 1991, A glossary of terms relating to data,
    data capture, data manipulation, and data bases: CODATA Bulletin, v. 23, no. 1-
    2.

Other Metadata Standards consulted and made compliant with ISO 19115 –
Geographic information – Metadata and the Federal Geographic Data Committee‘s
Content Standard for Geospatial Metadata:
   ASTM Section D18.01.05, various dates, spatial metadata content Standards for
    geographic information systems, catalogs, and data exchange

   Dublin Metadata Core and Z39.50, February 1998•Spatial Data Transfer Standard
    (SDTS), FIPS 173, 1992

   ANZLIC Working Group on Metadata: Core Metadata Elements Guidelines Draft
    7, Australia and New Zealand Land Information Council, November 1995

   Canadian Directory Information Describing Digital Geo-referenced Data Sets,
    Canadian General Standards Board, July 1994, Ottawa.

   Standard for Geographic Information - Metadata, European Committee for
    Standardization (CEN), September 1996, Brussels.

   Digital Geographic Information Exchange Standard (Digest), Version 1.2. Digital
    Geographic Information Working Group, January 1994,

   IHO Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data, International
    Hydrographic Bureau, October 1995, Monaco–Spatial Data Transfer Standard
    (SDTS), US Department of Commerce, August 1992, Gaithersburg, MD
   Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS), US
    Department of Commerce, December 1994, Gaithersburg, MD

   Cartographic materials: A manual of interpretation for AACR2, Anglo-American
    Committee on Cataloguing of Cartographic materials, 1982, Chicago

   USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data, US Library of Congress, 1988,
    Washington, DC




                                                                                    77
              NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          78
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                          August 23, 2007


                                      APPENDIX F

    Department of Defense Information Technology Standards Registry (DISR)
                                  Definitions

The DISR provides the minimal set of rules governing the arrangement, interaction, and
interdependence of system parts or elements, whose purpose is to ensure that a
conformant system satisfies a specified set of requirements. It defines the service areas,
interfaces, standards (DISR elements), and standards profiles applicable to all DoD
systems. Use of the DISR is mandated for the development and acquisition of new or
modified fielded IT and NSS systems throughout the Department of Defense. The DISR
replaced the Joint Technical Architecture.

Standards in the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) move through the standards lifecycle
across a timeline from emerging to mandated to retired. These are defined as follows:

Emerging may be implemented, but shall not be used in lieu of a mandated standard. An
emerging standard is expected to be elevated to mandatory status within three years. Use
of an emerging standard in a TV-1 requires a waiver and a Technology Insertion Risk
Assessment. In general, emerging standards should be placed in the TV-2.

Mandated standards provide interoperability and net-centric services across the DoD
enterprise. They are the minimum set of essential standards for the acquisition of all
DoD systems that produce, use, or exchange information and, when implemented,
facilitate the flow of information in support of the warfighter. These standards are
required for the management, development, and acquisition of new or improved systems
throughout the DoD.

Mandated Sunset standards have been identified and approved by ASD(NII) to be
tagged for retirement. Usually a pre-defined event and date are associated with the
standard the sunset tag. In addition, a replacement standard is frequently identified. An X
in the ―sunset‖ column in a standards profile identifies this sunset status.

Retired standards should not be used in a new or upgraded system. All retired standards
citations remain in the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR). However, when selected for
inclusion in a Technical Standards View (TV), a retired standard citation requires a
waiver and a Technology Insertion Risk Assessment.




                                                                                         79
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page intentionally left blank




                                                          80
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
         NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                            August 23, 2007

                          APPENDIX G

                         List of Acronyms

COI          Community of interest
CRS          Coordinate Reference System
CSMWG        Community Sensor Model Working Group
DCGS         Distributed Common Ground System
DDMS         Dept of Defense Discovery Metadata Specification
DED          Data Element Dictionary
DISA         Defense Information Systems Agency
DISR         DoD IT Standards Registry
DoD          Department of Defense
FINTEL       Finished Intelligence
GEOINT       Geospatial Intelligence
GIS          Geospatial Information System
GML          Generalized Markup Language
GWG          Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group
HUMINT       Human Intelligence
IC           Intelligence Community
IC DMC       Intelligence Community Data Management Committee
IC ISM       Intelligence Community Metadata Standard for Information
             Security Markings
IC MSP       Intelligence Community Metadata Standard for Publications
IMINT        Imagery Intelligence
IPL          Image Product Library
ISO          International Organization for Standards
ITSC         Information Technology Steering Committee
JFCOM        Joint Forces Command
JITC         Joint Interoperability Test Command
JSIC         Joint Systems Integration Command
JTF          Joint Forces Command
MASINT       Measurement and Signatures Intelligence
MFG          Metadata Focus Group
MGCP         Multinational Geospatial Co-production Program
NAC          National System for Geospatial-Intelligence (NSG) Architecture
             Compliance document
NCGIS        National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards
NGA          National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
NSG          National System for Geospatial-Intelligence
QMSWG        Quality Metadata Sub-Focus Working Group
SCOTS        Standards-Based Commercial Off-the-Shelf
SIGINT       Signals Intelligence
TC           Technical Committee
XML          eXtensible Markup Language
                                                                          81
         NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                              August 23, 2007




        This page left intentionally blank




                                                          82
NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                          August 23, 2007

                   METADATA DESK SIDE REFERENCE GUIDE
                        Review information and comment forms


  The following information is provided for your guidance and for your use as a
reviewer/analyst of the Metadata Desktop Reference Guide. All comments are welcome
and appreciated.
   Please try to provide correct information if you disagree with what is being presented.
If you believe information is incorrect, inadequate or insufficient, please provide the
correct version. If you so not suggest replacement information, we may have to disregard
the comment.
  If you have suggestions for making the document more presentable, more usable,
and/or a better reference guide, please make those suggestions as clearly as you can.
  Please review the other comments that we have received as they may answer your own
comment or question. If you agree with the other reviewers comment, please indicate
―Agree‖ or Disagree‖ in the appropriate column.
   Thank you all very much for your interest in this document. It is intended for your use
to help in the understanding of ―METADATA‖ and its value.
Please use this comme nt form for suggestions, comments, corrections, additions, and
other helpful pieces of information. This will allow the review team to organize,
compare, and gene rally maintain control of the comments.
 Name of Person Completing Form:
 Organization:
 Date:
 Standard Version and Date:
Contact information of reviewer:
Please return comments to: Gerald.johnston@ngc.com or
Norman.c.andersen@nga.mil




                                                                                         83
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                              August 23, 2007

                             COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
                   Ge os patial M e tadata D e s k Side Re fe re nce Gui de
                        Instructions for Submitting Comme nts

When providing comments on the Ge os patia l M e tadata Des k Side Re fe re nce Gui de ,
please use the provided electronic spreadsheet and structure your comments as follows:
Paragraph/Subparagraph: The identification of the paragraph and subparagraph of the
section the comment addresses
The paragraph and subparagraph number are located along the left margin of the
document at the beginning of each section, in the format paragraph, subparagraph (for
example, 1.4).
**If the sub-paragraph is not identifiable by numeric value, please get as specific as you
can as to the location, i.e., Paragraph 3.4, 4th subparagraph, 3rd line.
Figure/Table/Line #: The identification of the figure, table, or line number of the section
the comment addresses
Type of Comment: Comments fall in one of three categories:
             General (G) comments that address overall issues
             Technical (T) comments that address the technical accuracy of sections or
              sub-sections of the document
           Editorial (E) comments that are editorial in nature, for example improper
              sentence structure or typographical errors
Comment: the reviewer’s identification of the problem or question with the
  document
     The comment should be as specific as possible and, if appropriate, include the text
  in question. Comments will not be considered if they are overly general, for example,
  ―I don‘t like this section‖.
Proposed Change: the reviewer’s proposed change to the document
     The proposed changes should be as specific as possible to ensure the question or
   problem is adjudicated correctly. Comments will not be considered without a specific
   proposed change, including suggested wording.
Note: Type of Comment, Comment, and Proposed Change columns must include entries
      to be considered. Either the Paragraph/Subparagraph or Table/Figure/Line #
      column must contain entries.
      Note: Extensive comments may be transferred electronically as attachments to
      this document. References to attachments can be made in the Proposed Change
      column.




                                                                                           84
                  NSG Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                        DRAFT
                                    UNCLASSIFIED
                         Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                                                                     August 23, 2007




                                         COMMENT FORM
                              Ge os patial M e tadata De s k Side Re fe re nce
                                     Comment Submission Form



Page number    Name/              Figure/ Type of     Comment                    Proposed Change
Paragraph/     Organization       Table/ Comment:
Subparagraph                      Line # S=Suggested
                                          R=
Sentence #                                Recommend
                                          E=Editorial




                                        DRAFT                                                          85
                                    UNCLASSIFIED
                         Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
               DRAFT
           UNCLASSIFIED
Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference
                                          August 23, 2007




THIS PAGE INTENTIONALY LEFT BLANK




               DRAFT                                        86
           UNCLASSIFIED
Geospatial Metadata Desk Side Reference

								
To top