Figure 1-1 GII User Community
Figure 1-2 Today's systems: many windows but no integrated view
Figure 1-3 The future: an integrated view
Figure 1-4 The fusion of information from different domains provides an integrated view of
the mission space
Figure 1-5 Geospatial Infrastructure Relationships
Figure 2-1 The Spiral Process
Figure 2-2 GII technology assessment and integration
Figure 3-1 Conceptualization of the GII
Figure 3-2 GII Framework
Figure 3-3 Fused View of Foundation Data
Figure 3-4 Mission Specific Data Set (MSDS)
Figure 3-5 An Integrated View of the Mission Space
Figure 4-1 Architecture Views
Figure 4-2 GII Operational Architecture
Figure 4-3 GII Requirements Environment
Figure 4-4 Mission Decomposition
Figure 4-5 Readiness and Responsiveness Production Strategy
Figure 4-6 Components of the Foundation Data Production Plan
Figure 4-7 GII Foundation Data Structure
Figure 4-8 Object Reuse in a Distributed Computing Environment
Figure 4-9 USIGS Distributed Computing Environment
Figure 4-10 Systems support for DoD
Figure 4-11 DII and Non-DII Interface to Framework Information
Figure 4-12 GII "System of Systems"
Figure 5-1 Community Based Planning and Coordination Process
Figure 5-2 Coordination of geospatial standards
Figure 5-3 Summary Roadmap to the GII
Figure 5-4 GII Risk Management Table
Figure 5-5 GII Report Card
Executive Summary
The Requirement
Geospatial information is needed by a wide variety of users with both global and domestic requirements. These users include members of the national security, defense and intelligence communities, our international partners, as well as members of the civil, academic and commercial communities. Together, they represent a diverse set of missions including environmental analysis, diplomatic readiness, and strategic deployment.
Despite the diversity of needs, all of these users share the requirement for a common set of global geospatial information. This information must be detailed enough to support the analysis of global and regional trends, serve as the frame of reference for the fusion of information from other domains, and support rapid intensification with more detailed geospatial information to meet mission specific requirements.
The fulfillment of this shared need will require the establishment of a supporting infrastructure. This infrastructure must provide for the collection and management of requirements for geospatial information, acquire data and produce new information in response to the requirements, manage the information, ensure ease of access and dissemination, and develop common tools that will allow users to accurately exploit and apply geospatial information in their decision making process.
The Vision
Our national security can be enhanced by an “information edge” made possible through this new infrastructure for geospatial information. The infrastructure is the collection of people, doctrine, policies, architectures, standards, and technologies necessary to create, maintain, and utilize a shared geospatial Framework. To ensure the success of the infrastructure in meeting user requirements, the Geospatial Information Integrated Product Team (GI IPT) has engaged the user community as “stakeholders” in the development of the vision for the future of geospatial information.
The user’s potential for mission success will be improved by providing assured access to a consistent set of geospatial information with known accuracy, quality, and lineage keyed to a shared Framework. This Framework will provide the common base for the fusion of information needed to support tailored views of the mission space. Superior knowledge of mission space will be achieved through a community-based planning process, a new web-based requirements management environment, a more responsive information acquisition and production strategy, improved information management, easier access and delivery mechanisms, and more robust application tools.
An integrated view of the mission space keyed
to a shared Geospatial Framework
The Plan
This Master Plan, the result of an interagency and inter-departmental effort recommended by the Defense Science Board and chartered by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, lays out the concept for a Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII) to meet the above challenges. This plan documents the feasibility of the approach, and lays out the first community-based roadmap for bringing the GII vision to fruition. The roadmap reflects not only a series of milestones and time frames but highlights the need to understand the issues, develop new business processes, resource new investments, and coordinates our transition to the information-based environment of the future. The stakeholders’ commitments become evident with the inclusion of their adoption plans as annexes to Volume 1. The roadmap continues to be tested and shaped through a series of concept prototypes, exercises, and limited operational demonstrations.
This Master Plan is your blueprint for the future. Avail yourself and your organization of every opportunity to make it fit your needs. Our National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Joint Vision 2010 (JV 2010) depend on a total community effort to implement the GII.
Key Recommendations
The key recommendations for participants of the plan include:
Preface
The Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII) Master Plan is a three-part document.
Volume 1
Volume 1 articulates the geospatial vision of the community for an integrated view of the mission space keyed to a shared geospatial Framework. It describes this Framework not only from an information, products, and services standpoint but also identifies the supporting infrastructure that must be in place for it all to work together successfully. To begin the process of implementing the vision, Volume 1 describes the business processes put in place by the GI IPT. It also describes the results of those activities and the associated recommendations for the future. Volume 1 culminates with a roadmap for the implementation of the GII. The commitment of stakeholders becomes evident with the inclusion of annexes to the master plan which begin to examine the issues associated with the GII from each mission specific perspective. Volume 1 is organized in a question and answer format that allows the reader to focus on the aspects of the GII that are most important or relevant from their perspective.
Volume 2
Volume 2 provides more detail on the GII functional requirements, architecture, and standards. It also discusses initial results from the first development spiral.
Volume 3
Volume 3 will fully document GII 97, concluding the first development spiral.
Administrative Information
Acronyms are spelled out in all volumes when first used. They are also captured in a glossary, along with key definitions and cross-references to other sources of information, for easy reference.
Volumes 1 and 2 had prior releases. Because of the extensive rearrangement of the documents and considerable changes in content, it has been impractical to annotate changes except in the requirements section of Volume 2.
In 1995, the Defense Science Board (DSB) recommended that the Department of Defense:
Per the recommendation of the DSB and guidance of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, ASD(C3I), the Director of the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) established a Geospatial Information Integrated Product Team (GI IPT) to review the DSB recommendations and document the vision for and demonstrate the feasibility of a Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII). The GI IPT spanned the formation of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The cross-functional, interdepartmental GI IPT concludes its work with the publication of this Master Plan. The plan calls for continued development and implementation of the GII concepts under NIMA and the stakeholder community.
Geospatial information is any data that has associated with it some contextual, spatial, and temporal reference. There is a geospatial perspective that supports a broad range of national security decision makers, planners, and warfighters in the execution of their missions. A comprehensive and accurate geospatial perspective supports agile global response through information superiority in the face of rapidly changing expectations.
Global Engagement
The United States and its allies have interests in national security that play out on a global stage. In a world without a credible superpower competitor to the United States, the U.S. and its allies are increasingly looked to as mediators and problem-solvers in the host of military, political, economic, and social crises and natural disasters that affect the world. Where the U.S. and its allies see their interests at stake, they respond. Our experience since the end of the Cold War and all indicators for the future establish a compelling need for agility in economic, political, and military response around the world.
Our experience in one war, six major deployments and armed interventions, numerous diplomatic ventures, and other military operations since the end of the Cold War points out changing public expectations about global engagement and warfare. The key global threats are the results of demographic trends, growing humanitarian needs, resource scarcity, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rejection of western culture, terrorism, and the drug trade. Political action and diplomacy, first on the line to counter these threats, are becoming increasingly inter-agency. Diplomacy carries the nation’s flag and reputation, and is expected to prevail. Military deployment, when required, must be rapid, smooth, and convincingly trouble-free to be a deterrent in its own right. Military force, when applied as a last resort, must be precise and overwhelming while keeping friendly casualties and collateral damage at a minimum and avoiding friendly fire or civilian casualties.
Need for Information Superiority
Information superiority is the key to success in our economic, diplomatic, and military ventures. Working for peace, opportunity, and durable democratic systems in complex political, social, and cultural systems and stressed physical environments requires a full range of reliable information tools. Diplomacy must be grounded in social, political, economic, military, and geographic understanding. Information superiority is a precondition to Full Spectrum Dominance sought for our Armed Forces in the 21st century. The Chairman’s Joint Vision 2010 (JV 2010) notes that dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional protection, and focused logistics all depend on information superiority. No negotiations can be conducted, no forces can move, no weapons can be brought to bear, no forces can be protected, and no support and supplies can move without a sense of location, an understanding of surroundings, and an understanding of the influence of mission space on the operation. Geospatial information, imagery, and imagery intelligence underpin global engagement.
Geospatial information is needed by a diverse community of users with both global and domestic responsibilities, as shown in Figure 1-1. To ensure consistency of solutions with user missions, the GI IPT has engaged the user community as “stakeholders” in the development of the vision for the future of geospatial information.
Figure 1-1 GII User Community
The civil, academic and commercial communities are interested in how geospatial information might advance domestic security. Civil agencies see opportunities to spatially reference information across a broad range of applications such as urban planning, agriculture management, weather monitoring, disaster relief, and environmental cleanup. The academic community seeks to expand our understanding of geographic processes and spatial relationships through improved theory, methods, technology, and data. Industry sees many new opportunities to spatially reference information such as income, real estate, insurance liability, communication networks, and automobile navigation systems to create a competitive edge.
The national security community needs a global set of geospatial information to support diplomacy, non-combatant evacuation operations, assessment of national security threats, humanitarian and disaster relief efforts, and the deterrence of war.
The defense and intelligence community needs geospatial information to achieve JV 2010. Dominant maneuver requires a near-global foundation of accurate, current geospatial information to be ready for strategic deployment as well as intensification of that foundation to support operational and tactical maneuver. Precision engagement means that our forces must be able to find and accurately geo-position targets as well as maintain command and control with the full knowledge of where our forces are within the mission space. Full-Dimension Protection requires understanding of vulnerabilities that can only be obtained through superior knowledge of the mission space, to include the position of and potential threat from enemy forces. Focused logistics will require a shared framework of near-global geospatial information to provide locations and routes essential to planning and execution.
Our international partners in global security share our need for geospatial information. Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom have actively participated in the work to date. We envision an ever-expanding requirement for sharing geospatial information with international partners in diplomacy, economic ventures, and military operations.
To support decision making, many users still rely on hardcopy maps and charts and employ manual overlays to integrate and analyze information from other domains. Some users have state-of-the-art automated information tools, but lack the types of data and area coverages needed to support their missions. Within DoD, today’s warriors must deal with long lead times for the production and delivery of standard map and chart products, and, as illustrated in Figure 1-2, they must also deal with the inability to effectively integrate digital data from stovepiped information flows.
Figure 1-2 Today’s systems: many windows but no integrated view
In today’s political and military environment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict where in the world geospatial information will be required. When the needs arise, responsiveness is measured in hours and days versus production cycles of months and years normally needed to supply standard map, chart and digital product coverages.
Users see advances in geospatial technologies, networking, and virtual displays, and they expect to see these capabilities fielded quickly, in integrated packages, to support their missions.
To meet these expectations, users must have interoperable tools that will allow them to quickly move away from reliance on paper products and stovepiped information flows; and, they must have a consistent set of near-global geospatial information to take full advantage of analytical computing environments.
Future decision aids will build upon these capabilities to present relevant information in ways that assist human thought and decision making. To do this, the information must be sufficiently complete, current, positionally correct, and accurately described to build trust in the user. Any uncertainties in information must be communicated effectively, and information from various sources must hang together logically. Displays must present information relevant to tasks without losing context, and users must be able to query, or “drill down” to any information that might be critical to understanding a situation.
Changes in Operations Based On Improved Navigation and Increased Availability of New Sources of Geospatial Information
Information needs of many operational users are changing. The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides reliable navigation, day or night, on the move, within meters. This capability challenges the accuracy of traditional maps, charts, and geospatial databases
Today, spaceborne and airborne sensors provide unprecedented visibility of our globe, at ever-increasing resolution, in more parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Licenses have been granted for industry to sell unclassified high-resolution imagery. Mapping-quality radar imaging can now penetrate clouds and the night. Multispectral imaging supports environmental monitoring and offers the promise for some types of automated feature classification. Increasingly, anything in the open can be observed or targeted and engaged given an accurate geodetic position.
Automation, networking, and advances in standardization are turning intelligence collection and information production into a more collaborative discipline that can tie work together through spatial referencing. As a result, confusion about accuracy, sources, and geodetic reference systems used in these processes can no longer be tolerated.
Improved communications, encryption, weapon system mobility and lethality, and focused logistics are facilitating the transition to more seamless forces that can rapidly mass their effects from widely dispersed locations. Technology is also creating the potential for decentralized command and control.
Analytical tools are being used today to assess the impact of the environment on operations. Three-dimensional visualization systems are also becoming part of the operational suite for diplomatic missions (such as the boundary negotiations conducted at Dayton during the Bosnian peace talks) and for mission planning and rehearsal. These tools have been data-hungry for some time. If true information dominance is to be achieved, better methods must be found to exploit new data sources and provide the timely and accurate geospatial information needed to support current and future visualization systems and tactical decision aids.
Possibility of an Integrated Picture
These operational developments all demand an information environment in which the national security decision maker and warrior can spatially relate friendly and threat situations in the context of mission space. It is now technically feasible to co-register what had been separate views of mission space, bringing everything to the common geometry established in the geospatial Framework.
Through the development of the GII, NIMA and the stakeholder organizations and agencies must strive to populate this Framework with a consistent set of geospatial information and to provide the infrastructure to effectively maintain and manage it, ensure ready access and dissemination, and develop easy-to-use low-cost tools for user exploitation. As illustrated in Figure 1-3, the GII will support the logical fusing of information to create a powerful integrated view of the mission space.
Figure 1-3 The future: an integrated view
Enhancing our national security through the ability to support global engagement requires the development of a consistent set of geospatial information to serve as the frame of reference. That foundation set of geospatial information must be able to be intensified to meet specific mission requirements.
Global Engagement
Crisis Support
The GII is the collection of people, doctrine, policies, architectures, standards, and technologies necessary to create, maintain, and utilize geospatial information and services. It is needed to address current and emerging requirements of users that cannot be adequately met by traditional products, production processes, and strategies. The GII must provide capabilities such as requirements analysis, data modeling, information production, information management, and communications for dissemination. It must support the development of interoperable applications to assist users in exploiting the information and achieving an integrated view of the mission space.
Achieving Interoperability
Interoperability is the capability of people, organizations, and equipment to operate effectively together, sharing information so that it can be used across domains. It requires compatibility at specified levels of interaction among diverse systems made by different vendors.
Geospatial interoperability can be hindered by information that is extracted to varying data definitions, attribution rules, reference geometries, data resolution, data content, and currency. Interoperability can also be hindered by finishing and dissemination processes that apply varying formats and inconsistent data boundary or tiling schemes. User systems may reformat information, apply inconsistent symbology, and run analytic and visualization packages based on different assumptions or rules. It would be both impossible and undesirable to root out all differences because geospatial information supports so many specialized applications. However, compatibility must be achieved across essential interfaces through common data models and exchange standards.
The GII will contribute to interoperability by providing a sharable global information set of logically consistent information, captured to standard definitions and rules, on a common geometry, of sufficient reliability to be the basis for all future intensification. It will also support the development of approved interoperable applications and standard applications interfaces. Approved applications are applications that have been certified to maintain data accuracy and data integrity during geospatial data processing and manipulation.
The GII will support the evolution of standards for geospatial information, approved applications, and applications interfaces through constructive engagement with the standards forums that are most applicable to geospatial information.
Building An Integrated View of the Mission Space
Data from many sources must be brought to a common geometry and standard set of naming conventions established by the geospatial Framework and, if possible, logically deconflicted to provide reliable input for a coherent integrated view, as illustrated in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-4 The fusion of information from different domains provides an
integrated view of the mission space
An integrated view requires the doctrine, training, and tools to produce consistent results. The integrated view must present certain confidence measures to the user which convey the errors and approximations implicit in all information. Information management doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures must be in place to address the lag times in capturing, processing, and integrating new information, and the need to keep distributed views synchronized.
An integrated view means:
An integrated view does not mean:
The GII is a totally included component of the United States Imagery and Geospatial Information System (USIGS), as shown in Figure 1-5.
Figure 1-5 Geospatial Infrastructure Relationships
USIGS is the federation of organizations, networks, and relationships of the U.S. government that collectively or individually acquires, produces, and delivers imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information and services to users. Both the GII and USIGS intersect the Defense Information Infrastructure (DII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). All of these infrastructures are components of the more loosely defined National Information Infrastructure and, by extension, the Global Information Infrastructure. The DII, GII, and USIGS, through relationships with allies and other cooperating nations, reach beyond the NII to also be components of the information infrastructures of those other nations.
The intersections of these infrastructures mark the critical interfaces across which information and services must be exchanged to assure interoperability.
The GI IPT put into place an evolutionary spiral planning, engineering, and management process that engages the entire stakeholder community. Stakeholders are those agencies and organizations with a vested interest in the information, products, and services provided through the GII. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the spiral process documents architectures, standards, and community functional and performance requirements. It intercepts and assesses emerging technologies, provides risk mitigation, and supports the rapid insertion of new capabilities into stakeholder operations.
Radical increases in capability are generally seen early in the span of any technology and level off as the technology matures. Consequently, large tightly-integrated systems of the past are unable to rapidly achieve significant increases in performance. Loosely-coupled capabilities that can plug in and play in any environment are what is needed to gain significant performance improvements while providing a flexible architecture that can keep pace with technological change.
The development, retooling, integration, and retraining costs of bringing any new implementation into use inhibits adopting each new technical improvement as it becomes available. A reasonable enterprise goal is to sustain an operational capability that is relatively stable, reliable, and competitive. In a complex environment, like the GII, this becomes difficult to manage. For the GII to work well many processes, supported by a wide range of technologies at varying levels of maturity, must operate together smoothly.
This complexity, and the difficulty of synchronizing advances in a broad range of technologies, forces a novel approach. The community-based process adopted by the GI IPT involves strong industry participation. This participation includes involvement in the formulation of requirements, identifying and assessing stable technology solutions, promoting industry partnerships to reduce the risks of integration, and prototyping production and exploitation applications for operational use through spiral development.
Figure 2-1 The Spiral Process
The spiral approach supports continuous process improvement. As illustrated in Figure 2-2, it permits soliciting for the next round of technology as soon as preliminary results are available from the technology assessments. In addition, it provides the information baseline needed to produce a community-based Master Plan.
Figure 2-2 GII technology assessment and integration
The first deliveries through this outreach, assessment, and integration process are known as GII 97, and serve as the extendible GII prototype for continued requirements refinement, assessment, integration, risk mitigation, and operational transition of emerging technology in successive spirals.
The GI IPT has captured a series of lessons and observations relating to the process, its interaction with industry, and the current state of geospatial technology. High level lessons and observations are recorded below. Detailed lessons learned and observations have shaped the GII vision, architectures, and requirements documented in Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Master Plan. In addition, lessons and observations continue to emerge in the course of the technology assessment for GII 97; these will be recorded in a separate report.
The IPT process has significant community support because:
Industry has contributed to the IPT process by providing feedback on the government derived capability-based and performance-based requirements, advice on standards, and contributions of technology solutions. Through this industry contact, we have learned that:
The following observations are grouped as those of general applicability and those that can be associated with the four major functional thrusts of the GII:
General
Requirements
Production
Information Management and Dissemination
Applications
The lessons learned to date in the IPT process have confirmed the findings of the DSB. They demonstrate the feasibility of addressing issues through new technologies and business practices, and they have shaped the vision for the GII presented in the following section.
The GII is proposed as a new enabling infrastructure to meet the needs of the community for geospatial information. The infrastructure is the collection of people, doctrine, policies, architectures, standards, and technologies necessary to create, maintain, and utilize a shared geospatial Framework.
Figure 3-1 Conceptualization of the GII
The GII will provide geospatial information, products and services within an increasingly austere, yet dynamic and demanding national security environment. As depicted in Figure 3-1, the vision is based on concepts which will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the components of the infrastructure. The GII:
At the heart of the GII is the geospatial Framework. The Framework is composed of user services and a consistent set of geospatial information with known accuracy, quality and lineage. Together, these components, shown in Figure 3-2, provide a coherent frame of reference to support the formation of an integrated view of the mission space.
Foundation DataFoundation Data forms the base of the Framework and is one of the principal components of the readiness strategy designed to meet user requirements. The Foundation contains geospatial information that is:
The following types of information make up the Foundation:
Figure 3-3 illustrates the potential for fusing the basic components of Foundation Data to create a maplike view useful in its own right for planning and operations. Foundation Data will also support three-dimensional visualization and some analytic operations.
Feature data contained in the Foundation are defined in the Foundation Feature Data (FFD) Specification (MIL-MGCGT-0198) dated July 7, 1997. Feature density is dependent upon the specific geographic region, though it will generally approximate that of a traditional 1:50,000 to 1:100,000 scale map. FFD includes delineations of transportation and drainage networks, geodetic control points, populated places, boundaries, and natural and cultural features of high interest or visibility.
Foundation Data serves as the base for densification and for addition of new categories of information.
In the future, Foundation Data may be expanded to include other geospatially controlled information such as additional imagery and imagery intelligence data.
Figure 3-3 Fused View of Foundation Data
Mission Specific Data Sets form the next layer in the Framework. Each data set is developed by enhancing the information contained in the Foundation. MSDS include higher resolution controlled imagery, elevation and/or depth information and vector features needed to meet defined mission requirements, as illustrated in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4 Mission Specific Data Set (MSDS)
MSDS support the readiness and responsiveness strategy of the GII. To support readiness, MSDS are produced to satisfy validated area requirements for standard products as well as for standard coverages of geospatial information. The process to identify standard mission information requirements is discussed in Section 4.1.1. Through the requirements process, the geospatial information specifications are standardized across each mission to ensure interoperability and an integrated view of the mission space. This is especially critical for joint military operations.
Responsiveness production is driven by crisis/emergency support requirements. In each case, MSDS are produced by rapidly intensifying Foundation Data to meet the specific information needs and timelines of the mission.
Qualified DataQualified Data includes other data sets of known quality and accuracy that have not been integrated, or deconflicted, with Foundation Data and MSDS. Legacy NIMA standard digital products are a core component of Qualified Data.
Available national and international government databases which satisfy identified requirements will also be assessed and added as Qualified Data. The assessment will be based on established standards for accuracy, currency resolution, content, and format.
A data source of growing importance to the community is commercially available pro-ducts and databases. The commercializa-tion of geospatial production tools has opened the door to a wealth of geospatial information worldwide. Those products and databases with documented accuracy and quality that help to meet unfulfilled requirements will be considered for procurement. If suitable licensing agreements can be negotiated, selected products will be assessed and added to the Framework as Qualified Data.
Value-added data, collected by users, meeting established standards may also be assessed and incorporated as Qualified Data. In every case, key metadata will accompany the Qualified Data to support informed application by the user community.
Metadata
Metadata provides the common thread that enables users to better understand the geospatial information. When used in con-junction with application tools, it allows the intelligent integration of mission information from multiple sources with Framework Information. Metadata specifies accuracy and currency characteristics; lineage information such as producer/originator; sources used; and date of compilation.
NIMA, in coordination with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), through the Defense Data Dictionary System (DDDS), is developing a data model for USIGS which captures the logical data structures, definitions and relationships of all required imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information.
This effort includes DoD enterprise model harmonization and coordination with our international partners. In addition, the intent is to align USIGS efforts with other civil and commercial modeling activities through the OGC, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), commercial satellite imagery providers, and international standards organizations.
Framework Services provide an interface between Framework Information and the user environment. The services equip the user with the ability to access, retrieve and exploit the data needed to support a specific mission. Other services provided by the Framework include ad hoc or programmed technical assistance, and training materials covering applicable subject areas. As shown in Figure 3-2, Framework extends into the user environment through the delivery of information applications that allow the generation of “views” of Framework Information either in soft or hardcopy form.
Local mission information and capabilities lie at the apex of the GII Framework shown in Figure 3-2. Resident exploitation capabilities and Framework Services are used to fuse locally generated information and information from other sources with the Framework. to create an integrated view of the mission space, as shown in Figure 3-5. Some local mission information will be valuable in satisfying broader user requirements. This value-added information may be forwarded to NIMA for inclusion in updates to the Framework.
Using Framework Information and Services, along with resident exploitation capabilities, users will be able to:
Figure 3-5 An Integrated View of the Mission Space
Many other sources of information lie outside of the environment of Framework Information. Access to this potentially useful, but unqualified, data will be provided through the Framework interface, with NIMA serving as an information broker to link users to other sources of geospatial information. However, the integration of Framework Information with unqualified data must be performed with caution since the quality, accuracy, currency, lineage and reference system may be unknown or inadequately documented in the metadata.
The new paradigms and business strategies associated with the GII will offer the following benefits:
The GII and USIGS follow the guidelines for architecture planning and development that have been established by the C4I Integration Support Activity (CISA) to support DoD Command Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). These guidelines define a common approach that can be used across DoD, and by the intelligence community for developing architectures to support civil and national users as well as our international partners.
The architecture for USIGS will support the community’s requirements for imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial information. The GII will be implemented within USIGS, and the GII will define the geospatial information component of the USIGS architecture.
Architecture is defined as “the structure of components, their interrelationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution over time”. As shown in Figure 4-1, CISA decomposes architecture into three views.
Figure 4-1 Architecture Views
A central component of the USIGS architecture is the standardized development of data models and data dictionaries. These are necessary to support seamless information access and interoperability. Data architecture provides the common data modeling and terminology baseline needed to integrate each of the other component architecture views. Volume 2 of the Master Plan and the USIGS architecture documents contain a more complete description of the data architecture.
The operational architecture describes the operational elements, assigned tasks and information flows required to accomplish mission functions. It is driven by the mission needs and operational requirements of the users and describes the types of information, the frequency of exchange, and what tasks are supported by these exchanges.
The technical architecture documents the standards, standards profiles, and reference models and is consistent with the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA). It supports interoperability with the DII COE and throughout the geospatial community.
The systems architecture describes the component hardware, communications, and software systems that support accomplishing the mission. A primary function of the systems architecture is to provide a basis for an affordable, mission-supporting evolution to future systems.
Through this Master Plan and the GII community planning, engineering and management process, the needs of the geospatial domain will be defined within each of the evolving USIGS architecture views: operational, technical and systems.
The GII operational architecture provides mission essential geospatial information based on a production strategy that supports both readiness and responsiveness. The readiness component uses scheduled production to provide near-global coverage of Foundation Data, and to provide MSDS based on area requirements approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Together, this geospatial information supports global mission planning, specific mission applications, and short fuse operational needs. The responsiveness component provides additional MSDS by rapidly intensifying Foundation Data to meet specific crisis/emergency requirements.
There are five main components of the GII operational architecture listed below and depicted in Figure 4-2:
Figure 4-2 GII Operational Architecture
Currently, users request standard products corresponding to traditional maps, charts and packaged digital products. This process has led to a standing requirement for over 150,000 separate and distinct products which the current production capacity cannot achieve or maintain.
The GII will establish a new process, portrayed in Figure 4-3 to collect and analyze user requirements based on needs for essential elements of geospatial information. It will evolve from today’s requirements focus on traditional products to an approach that supports a range of geospatial information, products and services for global planning activities as well as for specific missions.
Figure 4-3 GII Requirements Environment
NIMA will work with the CINCs, services, agencies and other designated submitters to identify and compile requirements using new web tools based on evolving Internet technologies. Many of the on-going user needs that support a readiness posture capable of meeting the high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) requirements of the DoD will be derived from mission profiles. Profiles will be captured or negotiated collaboratively between NIMA and the user organizations. Figure 4-4 on the next page shows the steps involved in identifying geospatial information requirements based on mission specific needs.
To anticipate user needs, user query and order history will be captured as part of user profiles to provide an audit trail on mission requirements. Collecting and analyzing user network activity provides the basis for requirements forecasting, just as Internet technology is being used today to collect marketing information for commercial companies. This anticipatory element of requirements management will become increasingly significant as the pressure for rapid crisis response grows and as technology provides more mature information tools for the automated collection of requirements. The use of web based technologies will allow the requirements process to be more responsive to crisis/emergency mission operations by helping to anticipate the user’s needs.
Prototypes, exercises and demonstrations will be used to validate and verify the new requirements process. When the process is sufficiently mature, it will ultimately be incorporated into CJCSI 3901.1 to reflect the information based approach to mission support and readiness assessment.
Figure 4-4 Mission Decomposition
Through USIGS, the GII requirements process may be extended to create an integrated web-based ability to capture mission needs for imagery (National Technical Means - NTM and commercial) and imagery intelligence as well as geospatial information. In addition, information from the requirements management process can be used by NIMA for more responsive production scheduling.
The GII will rely increasingly on new commercial imagery sources. This includes imagery collected using radar, multispectral and hyperspectral sensors. Other new types of sensors, such as the laser depth sounder, will also be used to improve the collection of hydrographic data in critical littoral regions of the world.
In addition to raw source data, other commercial, government and international databases brought into the Framework as Qualified Data will be evaluated for direct use against requirements as well as for use as source material to populate, or update, Foundation Data and MSDS. NIMA will begin acquiring geospatial information as a commodity from any and all applicable information sources within and outside the government as well as from foreign partners, industry and academia. Commodity buys are purchases of geospatial information available on the commercial market
Finally, as geospatial data collection and processing capabilities of users increase, value-added data will become a significant resource in the future for the population of the Framework.
The GII production strategy is designed to increase the availability of geospatial information, improve cycle times, and reduce costs. Key concepts are depicted in Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-5 Readiness and Responsiveness Production Strategy
Components of the strategy include:
Geospatial production will incorporate suites of loosely coupled commercial tools using standard applications programming interfaces (APIs) to support self-reliant work groups. This component-ware approach will replace the existing inflexible and stovepipe processes used to support the end-to-end production of discrete products. The transition to data coverages as the units of production and maintenance will also permit greater flexibility in preparing and refreshing data than is currently feasible.
Requirements for Foundation Data and some of the MSDS can be fulfilled through co-production arrangements with other government agencies, international partners and industry. Specifications for these types of information are more developed, enabling a more standardized and controlled process to be implemented. Co-producers who regularly submit high quality data, and whose production processes ensure consistent results, will be certified by NIMA, and their data will be directly incorporated in the Framework. Data from producers with uncertified production processes will be reviewed, verified, and qualified by NIMA prior to inclusion in the Framework.
The production of more complex and detailed Mission Specific Data, and data needed for short fused crisis support, will be managed directly by NIMA. However, production may be performed either by NIMA or by other national security organizations with the required capabilities. The collaborative production environment will permit other qualified organizations to work together with NIMA to populate the details of these types of mission critical information.
NIMA will rely on its partnerships with government and industry to meet the resource intensive challenges that lie ahead. In addition, increased use of commercial contracting for geospatial information production as well as the procurement or brokering of geospatial information as a commodity are also anticipated.
To facilitate rapid near global population of Foundation Information, plans call for the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) to generate Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) between 60 degrees North and South by the year 2000. In addition, other means of collecting and producing elevation data are being sought through other military and commercial means.
Imagery provided by NTM, with greater reliance on commercial sources in the out years, will be used for the monoscopic and stereoscopic controlled imagery components of the Foundation.
The continuing need for advances in automated feature extraction is being stressed with industry
Feature generation will continue to be labor intensive since interactive digital extraction will still be required in the foreseeable future. The production strategy will include increased emphasis on the use of open source digital information in addition to photogrammetric source for feature capture. Finally, the continuing need for advances in automated feature and attribution capture is being stressed with industry.
Navigation safety information will be incorporated from NIMA nautical and aeronautical navigation safety information systems. Hydrographic and bathy-metric information will be incorporated from the Hydrographic Source Assess-ment System (HYSAS) and from Digital Nautical Charts (DNCs). Gravity and magnetics will be provided from NIMA maintained models for those geophysical parameters.
Key components of the production plan for Foundation Data are depicted in Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-6 Components of the Foundation Data Production Plan
For as long as they are needed, NIMA will continue to provide the hardcopy and digital products that have been developed to satisfy user requirements. These include standard paper maps and charts; digital products such as Compressed ARC Digitized Raster Graphics (CADRG), and Vector Map (VMap); and emerging digital products such as Digital Topographic Data (DTOP) and Littoral Warfare Data (LWD).
Since the capability of users to fully exploit the components of Framework Information for mission applications will develop over time, the GII will produce and support required standard products, as well as new products or “views”, using Framework Information.
As technology for automated generation of hardcopy and digital “views” of Framework Information improves, requirements for traditional standard products are anticipated to decline. This is expected because users themselves are demanding the ability to generate mission specific views of much greater value through the information and services provided by the GII.
Framework Information will be acquired, produced and maintained in standard units of content and extent called coverages. Coverages will be defined to permit efficient population and maintenance, and to maintain the integrity of the data. Each coverage will have a standard thematic content, and a standard geographic footprint. Foundation Data will be produced in one-degree latitude/longitude cells over the globe, as shown in Figure 4-7. MSDS will have a similar structure and will be produced over specific mission areas identified through the requirements process.
The GII will consist of a virtual network of information libraries and local data stores. Framework Information will be available from NIMA information libraries.
Figure 4-7 GII Foundation Data Structure
Subsets of the information held by NIMA will be located at distributed regional libraries and local data stores to:
NIMA will be responsible for the administration and maintenance of the Framework Information stored in its libraries and for distribution of the information to other organizations. Each organization hosting a distributed regional library or local data store will be responsible for its own data administration and management to include access control, backups, management of local media, performance tuning, and capacity management.
Framework Access
As part of Framework Services, a catalog of Framework and other geospatial (unqualified) information will be developed. This catalog will serve as a gateway to the information held by both producers and users in the infrastructure. Connectivity will be provided through an "Internet-like" browser. Framework Services and the metadata contained in the catalog will support the user’s ability to search, discover, retrieve and/or order the necessary geospatial information. For data not held by NIMA, Framework Services will automatically connect users with other gateways to provide data access.
The catalog will contain metadata describing the contents of each repository. It will include assessments of the following types of information:
Information access services will support:
Users will also be able to request a symbol library and supporting services needed to display the information with standard symbology. This capability will be addressed as part of the development of the USIGS Data Model in order to encourage the development of commercial solutions.
User Profiles
For non-DoD users, NIMA will establish profiles to support the automatic distribution of information updates and notification of new or changed data. These profiles will contain basic user data such as name, address and releasability restrictions, and they also will capture user mission specific requirements. For DoD users, NIMA will supplement DISA-established user profiles to include data relevant to the management and dissemination of geospatial information.
By using the profile information and recording user orders and queries, NIMA will be able to analyze the results as an input to the new requirements management process to support requirements forecasting. User ordering trends will also provide information to support the smart “push” of Framework updates or the availability of new MSDS in the user’s area of interest.
Submission of Value-Added DataTo support co-production and value-adding activities, Framework Services will manage the submission of geospatial information by users and producers. Value-added data will be incorporated into the Framework as Qualified Data. The catalog will be updated to reflect the availability of new information which may be needed immediately by other users. The value-added data may also serve as a timely source of current information to support the production or update of Foundation Data and MSDS.
Framework Dissemination
For large volumes of information, the preferred method of dissemination will be pre-deployment to the regional libraries and local data stores. This can best be accomplished using physical media, such as CD-ROM.
The Global Broadcast Service (GBS) will also support the transmission of Framework Information. In addition, it may be used by users to transmit queries, orders or value-added information to NIMA. To and from transmissions are managed by the Joint Information Management Center (JIMC) and the relevant Command Information Management Center. Command Information Manage-ment Centers are responsible for the flow of broadcast traffic within the theater. They determine the dissemination priority structure and resolve in-theater information priority conflicts.
To fully exploit the search, discover and retrieve capabilities of the GII, users will use network connections to the NIMA central library, to a regional library, or to a local data store. The connection may be via open networks such as the Internet, or secure networks such as OSIS, NIPRNET, SIPRNET, Intelink, or JWICS. To optimize the use of available bandwidth and increase dissemination capability, USIGS will explore the application of data compression and other technologies.
Security
In order to work in multi-national environ-ments with coalition partners and in unified environments with a broad range of agencies, there is an operational requirement for multi-level security and releasability. Providing for the protection and control of critical geospatial data are information warfare issues which must be addressed not only at the technology level, but at the policy and doctrine level as well.
At a minimum, fire walls and other security mechanisms (e.g., user profiles and metadata content) will be used to permit a "read down" capability for classified systems. Such a capability will permit users of the more restricted system to retrieve data from the lower classification system; thereby avoiding the costs of storing, administering and maintaining multiple copies of the data for security reasons.
The GII community planning, engineering and management process will look for rapid technology insertion opportunities as multilevel security capabilities mature.
Applications are a key element of the GII vision. They constitute the user’s primary interface to Framework Information. Applications must be interoperable, portable and able to access the shared Framework as needed to support the user’s requirements. Geospatial applica-tions fall into two categories: shared geospatial processing services and mission specific applications.
Shared geospatial processing services support the basic functions of data access, manipulation and display. They provide a “tool kit” of functions such as those found in a commercial geographic information system software product.
For DoD users in the DII environment, the Joint Mapping Toolkit (JMTK) currently provides a suite of shared geospatial processing services. In its current state of development, JMTK functionally satisfies some, but not all, of the DoD requirements for the exploitation of geospatial information. An analysis comparing JMTK capabilities to the current set of application requirements compiled by the GI IPT is presented in Volume 2 and will be communicated to DISA’s COE MCG&I Working Group for consideration.
Mission Specific Applications
Requirements for mission specific applications depend on the mission being supported and on the user. For example, both internal NIMA users and stakeholders will require mission specific applications to support production of geospatial information. They will also require mission specific applications to support catalog access as well as order entry and retrieval of Framework Information. These applications will all be developed as part of Framework Services and they will be implemented in the USIGS architecture as USIGS Mission Specific Applications.
Many other applications tools are needed by users in the stakeholder community to support specific missions. Working with the stakeholders, NIMA will coordinate the implementation of shared community mission specific applications to promote efficiency of resources and reduce overlapping development activities. For example, Army may assume community responsibility for on-road and off-road mobility prediction applications to be shared with other services; and Marine Corps may take responsibility for applications specific to beach assault that may also be shared. Areas where shared mission specific applications will be needed include:
Shared mission specific applications will be managed through a coordinated community planning process. Stakeholders will be responsible for those mission specific applications that apply primarily to their domain.
Assessment of Geospatial Data Processing Applications
NIMA will evaluate geospatial processing services and applications to ensure they adhere to standards for accuracy, integrity, and interoperability established for the GII and USIGS. Approved applications may be either COTS or GOTS and will be available for acquisition from commercial sources (in the case of COTS) and through reuse repositories (for GOTS).
Through future iterations of the spiral engineering and management process, shared geospatial processing services and mission specific applications will routinely be evaluated against evolving technologies. As shortfalls in capability are identified, revised requirements will be articulated, and new or upgraded applications will be sought. Any required changes in the USIGS Data Model and application interfaces will be developed through coordination with appropriate standards organizations,. As much as possible, COTS solutions will be preferred if they support a reduction in development and long term maintenance costs.
The technical architecture supporting the geospatial domain must evolve within the USIGS technical architecture. Through USIGS, NIMA will establish the services, facilities and components needed to fulfill its imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial information mission. Refer to the USIGS technical architecture documents and Volume 2 of the Master Plan for more detailed descriptions.
The USIGS technical architecture is based on distributed object computing technology. In this environment, information applications are developed from software components, or objects, that interoperate across a heterogeneous network of hardware and software. This approach reduces development and maintenance costs, and it achieves the goal of interoperability. Applications and services draw upon supporting infrastructure services called Object Services and Common Facilities. These handle basic functions such as graphics calls, data interchange, data management, and network management.
The distributed computing environment supports the use of lower level components by higher level components or objects. The concept of object reuse is shown in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-8 Object Reuse in a Distributed Computing Environment
Within the USIGS distributed computing architecture, shared geospatial processing services are provided as Open Geospatial Exchange (OGE) Services. These services are used to perform common geospatial processing functions such as:
Figure 4-9 shows the USIGS distributed computing environment. For DII COE users, the COE provides the Object Services and Common Facilities, and JMTK provides the shared geospatial processing services.
Figure 4-9 USIGS Distributed Computing Environment
In the USIGS distributed computing environment, the applications programming interfaces (APIs) for OGE Services will be defined using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Interface Definition Language (IDL). As commercial vendors develop standard IDL applications programming interfaces, their COTS solutions will be considered for incorporation in USIGS. NIMA will also work with these vendors to encourage migration of COTS solutions for use in the DII COE environment.
Mission Specific Applications
Mission specific applications are objects that can access any of the services and facilities available in the distributed computing environment through the standard APIs. They can make use of one or more of the OGE Services to perform a higher level application, and like OGE Services, mission specific applications may also reuse Object Services and Common Facilities.
Examples of currently defined USIGS Mission Specific Applications include:
Coordinating the development of the USIGS Data Model, the definition of OGE Services and USIGS Mission Specific Applications, and the development of standard IDL APIs are the next critical steps to achieving interoperability. This coordination will take place through such forums as the ISO, FGDC, Object Management Group (OMG), and the OGC. These efforts will increase the availability and standardization of data and applications programming interfaces across the stakeholder community.
DII COE Interoperability Standards
For DoD users in the DII environment, NIMA is proposing that, as part of the USIGS architecture, OGE Services be incorporated in the COE. USIGS Mission Specific Applications are also proposed for use in the DII. This will enable USIGS to meet level 5 compliance at a minimum. Toward that end, the final results of the industry assessment of current COTS capabilities will be forwarded to the COE MCG&I Working Group. This information will be valuable in helping to shape DISA’s long-term plans for the JMTK program and MCG&I services in the DII COE. The results of the analysis will also be fed back to industry in order to keep the commercial vendors informed as to the technical and business processes associated with DII COE compliance and the associated interoperability goals.
The system architecture provides descriptions of systems and the connections that support mission functions. As with the technical architecture, the GII systems architecture must evolve with the USIGS architecture. Currently, the USIGS is incorporating legacy and migration systems, and budgeted systems that are in some phase of definition and acquisition.
Additionally, however, a primary function of the USIGS systems architecture is to provide a basis for an affordable, mission-supporting evolution to future systems. The GII must influence this evolution to provide the required support for geospatial information.
Specifically, the GII will influence the USIGS systems architecture to support:
Managing Requirements for Framework Information
Requirements management, in the information paradigm of the GII, will require the migration of existing product based single workstation requirements systems to an environment based on Framework Information. Requirements for geospatial information, based on missions, priorities, weapon/exploitation systems, organizational elements and essential elements of information will be linked to geographical areas of interest using web-based technologies. This will allow the users and producers of geospatial information to manage requirements in a collaborative information environment with easy-to-use graphical user interfaces. User profiles will support the smart push and pull of information. Linkages to available production management systems will provide current requirements status.
Data Acquisition to Support Population of the Framework
Population of the Framework will be accomplished using the collaborative efforts of the defense, intelligence, civil, commercial and international communities. As a result, critical interfaces will be required to support not only the acquisition and ingest of national source data for geospatial information production but also the acquisition of geospatial information from a wide range of alternative sources capable of directly supporting the population of the Framework. Potential commercial sources continue to increase as markets for the spatial referencing of information continues to expand and mature. Data acquisition management systems for the collection, prioritization, tasking, management and delivery of requirements for commercial imagery and geospatial information will be needed to support the new information provider role of the future.
Framework Information Production
Framework Information production will require the systems and connections to support NIMA’s internal production program, including support for source acquisition, co-production, collaborative production and information brokering programs. The system architecture will reflect the concept of a COTS-based workstation environment, workstation clustering, and synergistic imagery analyst (IA) and geospatial information (GI) production cells.
The GII will influence the USIGS systems architecture to support the management and dissemination of Framework Information This includes systems associated with the development of the integrated NIMA Library, and associated regional libraries and local data stores. Dissemination systems must provide the connectivity to the various user communities. In the case of DoD users, Framework Information and Services will be provided directly to the Joint Intelligence Center (JIC) / Joint Analysis Center (JAC) level, as shown on the next page in Figure 4-10. Services and commands must develop the architecture and connectivity needed to disseminate Framework Information and Services below the Unified Command / Joint Task Force level.
Figure 4-10 Systems support for DoD
Framework Applications Support
The systems architecture must provide access to USIGS Mission Specific Applications and OGE Services. For users in the DII COE environment, this access will be provided through a DII COE compliant USIGS interface. For users outside the DII COE environment, access will be through Framework Services and associated interfaces provided directly by USIGS as shown in Figure 4-11.
Figure 4-11 DII and Non-DII Interface to Framework Information
GII “System-of-Systems” Architecture
When fully implemented, the GII will be a “system-of-systems”, since components of the GII will be required to work with a large number of currently deployed and planned systems. A notional architecture depicting these characteristics is shown in Figure 4-12. The level of integration and inter-operability necessary for a given component can vary according to its purpose. This may range from a moving map display with no network connection, to an information library with world-wide connectivity to a large variety of users and systems.
Figure 4-12 GII "System of Systems"
The IPT has eight fundamental recommendations for implementing and sustaining the GII, as follows:
The geospatial community must move from the constraints of today’s products to the power of tomorrow’s information. Near-global geospatial coverage must be provided and ready for exploitation at any time by a broad range of users for familiarization, threat assessment, and initial planning and response. The community must respond during operations and in crisis through a flexible capability to build on the existing base. The user must have better visibility of and control over requirements, and the community must posture itself to anticipate requirements through understanding of users’ functional and performance needs. Users must have enhanced access to information, with better tools to enhance and manipulate geospatial information, fuse other information with it, and better understand the power and limitations of geospatial support. All of these changes must be made within the context of a community-based plan and sustained through a coordinated community effort that consciously strives to insert tested, trusted technology that enhances performance.
The geospatial community must provide information and services critical to the users’ mission accomplishment. To meet these needs, the geospatial community must begin the shift from products to information by establishing a near-global foundation of geospatial data. This foundation should be extensible to imagery, imagery intelligence, and other spatially-controlled information, and must support densification and augmentation with mission-specific data sets and qualified and unqualified data to provide Framework Information. NIMA and its coproducers, including international partners and industry, must refocus toward the readiness and responsiveness posture of Framework Information without putting user missions at risk. This requires both long-term and immediate action.
In order to fully implement this recommendation, NIMA and the community must:
Based on successes in GII 97 with Foundation Data and MSDS production, confirming that NIMA’s core production capability can produce Foundation Data and intensify it to higher levels of detail and that commercial systems can be used to produce standard products, NIMA should establish a Framework Information production program and establish an initial production work group in FY 98.
Framework Information production program
The Framework Information production program for FY 98 should:
Initial production work group
The initial production work group capability established at NIMA should be COTS-based and have clusters that will:
NIMA and the community must help the end-users as well as production users gain access to relevant geospatial information, regardless of its source. Accordingly, they must:
NIMA’s mission, as stated in DoDDir 5105.60, 11 October 1996, is to “provide timely, relevant, and accurate imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information in support of the national security objectives of the United States.” This mission statement is succinct and accurate, even with the new focus on geospatial Framework Information, but the Agency’s responsibilities and functions should include the following restatements:
The community must establish a requirements system that is more user-friendly, prioritizes users’ needs more effectively, and provides more flexibility to producers of information. The requirements system should have a common structure across the National, Federal, and DoD geospatial user base, and should be capable of extension into an integrated requirements capture environment for geospatial information, imagery, and imagery intelligence. The requirements system should have the following three key elements:
Users within the production environment, as well as end-users of geospatial information, must have access to Framework Information on their own schedule as well as smart dissemination responsive to their needs. To meet this requirement, a common client must support discovery, browse, and pull of desired information in addition to creation of user profiles for smart push. This client must operate on a heterogeneous mix of hardware and operating systems. The access and dissemination architecture must exclude unauthorized users, protect the integrity and security of information, and preserve operational security for military forces. To the extent possible, all communications and client systems must be those already in place to support commercial, command and control, intelligence, and logistics needs.
End-users, as well as users in community production environments, must be able to:
Additionally, end-users must be able to:
These capabilities must be robust, efficient, and repeatable, and must intuitively communicate information about their reliability so that the user can employ them intelligently. Symbology and displays must be consistent, informative, and intuitive. When new software applications are introduced, they must work as seamlessly as possible with existing applications, be readily accessible for download through the same channels as geospatial information, and contain their own familiarization and training tutorials. Applications should be modular and designed for reuse.
Training and technical assistance are the front line of NIMA user support. NIMA will develop specialized training courses given at the National Imagery and Mapping College (NIMC) and for use in the field either through self-paced instruction or through mobile training team support. NIMA will also expand the current Geospatial Technical Representative program. Geospatial Tech Reps will be available via network access or they may be deployed to user sites to assist in exploiting Framework Information and satisfying mission requirements. Additional technical resources will be supplied to support theater level crisis operations such as the deployment of a Joint Task Force.
Doctrine and organizational policy constitute a common business model from which to plan, program, operate, assess, and report. Doctrine and policy fundamentally shape the way stakeholders think about, train for, equip for, and execute their missions.
The doctrine and policy changes needed to exploit the information provided by the GII flow directly from urgent requirements within all of the stakeholder communities for a shared framework of geospatial information. However, the rate of transition must be such that stakeholders can shift to the new information-based environment at their own pace with minimal risk to mission failure.
For the DoD, the transition must begin with joint doctrine. The final draft of the “Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Geospatial Information and Services (GI&S) Support to Joint Operations”, Joint Pub 2-03, was released for review on 5 May 1997 and is projected for approval in the fall of 1997. This version of joint doctrine, although influenced by the GI IPT, is bound by the limits of existing capabilities and does not reflect the full target state for the GII as described in this Master Plan. New high-level doctrine must be formulated as the GII is fielded. This will also require revisions of Service doctrine to reflect new tactics, techniques and procedures.
New strategies may require modifications or enhancements to existing manning levels and force structures, or new organizational infrastructures may be needed in order to:
In addition, stakeholder plans will be needed to provide geospatial information training at all levels to fully exploit the GII Framework. Implementation within an organization or service must also plan for the necessary exploitation and communication systems to process geospatial information. Much of the required stakeholder planning has already begun and is articulated in the attached annexes to Volume 1 of this Master Plan.
In order to realize and sustain the GII, Stakeholders must:
In order to achieve the GII, academia, industry, the extended Federal geospatial community, our international partners, and the extended user community represented by the Military Services and a variety of agencies must work together, under NIMA leadership, in a community-based planning process started by the GI IPT.
NIMA will work with the Stakeholders to articulate and communicate the requirements and help to shape the future direction of research, development, and commercial product solutions. NIMA will:
NIMA must first complete the transition of the GI IPT activities into its organization. This process has already begun, moving toward the structures shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 Community Based Planning and Coordination Process
Strong interaction with the community will be continued through NIMA’s Community Management Office. Their mission is to maintain the effective community dialog developed within the IPT as it relates to all aspects of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information. Figure 5-1 depicts the organizational process that will be implemented by NIMA to continue the community- wide GII activity. A key aspect of this effort for next year will be to enhance this Master Plan to cover imagery and imagery intelligence.
The challenge of the transition effort is to cultivate the seeds of the various processes planted by the GI IPT and to assure that they will grow within the Stakeholder community. These seeds include: spiral development, the concept of Framework Information, optimizing the use of COTS, and the use of a suite of certified geospatial information applications. These and the other components of the GII represent the new paradigm for future NIMA support to its users.
The GII will be implemented using a spiral, evolutionary engineering and management process started by the GI IPT that engages the entire stakeholder community and delivers incremental upgrades for the overall GII. The spiral development process, as discussed earlier in Section 2.0, provides for the continuous refinement of requirements for technology insertion into, and refreshment of, the GII while taking advantage of mainstream commercial technology. The spiral model is an iterative process designed to minimize risk.
The environmental scans of technology leading into GII 97 considered a full range of COTS and GOTS technologies. The technology that has gone into GII 97 is primarily COTS produced for niche markets as standalone packages. The trend toward open COTS is altogether appropriate because the geospatial industry is maturing both technically and structurally. However, geospatial technology is not yet so mature that packages will connect and interoperate seamlessly.
The GII will naturally evolve from COTS patched by “glueware” to loosely coupled and highly interoperable solutions based on standard APIs which will provide the full range of information products and services needed to support any given mission. GII interfaces will evolve through the development of common data services, exchange formats, and data access interfaces that work well with Framework Information.
The GII needs a strategy to comply with the C4ISR architecture while maintaining compatibility with the architectures of national and international partners. The strategy must also support continued evolution of robust standards that enhance interoperability while facilitating operations.
The guiding document for standards and architecture during evolution of the GII will be the USIGS Technical Architecture (UTA). This document, which implements the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Technical Framework, requires at least level 5 compliance with the DII Common Operating Environment (DII COE) for DoD components of the GII. The current strategy for the GII is to adopt the work of various efforts coordinated under the DII Strategic Enterprise Architecture initiative. As the GII matures full compliance with the DII COE will be achieved.
NIMA will lead the definition and development of open geospatial exchange services and geospatial mission-specific applications for DoD in coordination with DISA as shown on Figure 5-2. In addition, the associated interfaces will be defined using the ISO/IDL. These activities will be coordinated through commercial, national, and international standards such as the OGC, OMG, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), FGDC, and the ISO.
NIMA chairs the Imagery Standards Management Committee (ISMC) and Geospatial Standards Management Committee (GSMC), whose missions are to develop, adapt, and maintain related information technology standards within the DoD, Intelligence, and Civil Federal communities that utilize imagery or geospatial information.
The ISMC and GSMC are subordinate to the DISA Center for Standards (CFS) Standards Coordinating Com-mittee (SCC). NIMA also leads the development of the underlying USIGS Data Model on behalf of the DISA Defense Data Dictionary System (DDDS) for imagery and geospatial information. The resulting data model for geospatial information will be coordinated through the OGC and other standards organizations for commercial, national, and international use.
Implementing the GII so that it achieves interoperability will require changes in roles and missions, organizations, systems, and processes. The GII is not alone, however, in addressing these challenges. Many of the same issues are affecting other information domains and the implementation of broader supporting infrastructures such as the DII. The GII can also benefit from plans and initiatives being undertaken in the information technology (IT) community to achieve interoperability and the efficient use of resources. These coordinating and streamlining efforts are mandated by recent legislation such as the:
As a result, all government agencies are required to develop strategic plans, identify information technology goals and objectives, and measure results. These goals, objectives, and measures of success must be used to support the POM planning process.
Stakeholders can employ the requirements, vision, and architecture in this Master Plan in the development of those portions of their IT strategic plans and architectures that relate to geospatial information.
Investments must be clearly linked to mission information needs that drive requirements. Investment analysis must be based on broad-based mission areas, and end-to-end threads crossing functional, technical and organizational boundaries. From the perspective of NIMA resources, the key geospatial mission areas are requirements management, source collection, information production, information management and dissemination, information applications, training and technical support. From the perspective of user resources, key mission areas may include communications capability at the tactical and organizational level, exploitation workstations, staffing, and training.
Framework Information and the means to access and exploit it, although justified in their own right for their contribution to the Defense establishment, offer great potential payoff to our international partners and to the nation’s economic and diplomatic sectors, significant partners in national security. Within the U.S., the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and Intelligence Agencies as well as other federal sector agencies, civil, academic, and commercial communities stand to gain significantly from production of Foundation Data. Because it is stable, non mission specific, and suitable for registering other sources, Foundation Data can enable a myriad of uses. For example, the Earth Observing System (EOS) program will provide a wealth of remote sensing data worldwide, but needs an information base on which to register the data. Foundation Data can provide that base. The geospatial Stakeholders should make such payoffs part of the investment message and creatively seek additional and alternative resources within and outside Defense for the accelerated population of the Framework.
The focus must shift to commercial technology rather than developmental solutions. In adopting commercial technology, GII architectural concepts must also be adopted so that the savings and interoperability gained though the use of COTS are not offset by custom integration and enhancement costs. With the adoption of COTS assets, responsibility for planning and budgeting for technology growth and interoperability enhancements should shift from the research and development organizations to operations elements.
Partnering with industry through acquisition of geospatial information as a commodity and the outsourcing of portions of Framework Information production must be emphasized. Recent advances in geospatial production technology, and the availability of production quality source material at the Secret level or without classification, make contract production of imagery-derived geospatial information a viable alternative.
In broad terms, different investment options represent the tradeoff between investments in responsiveness and investments in readiness. The problem set bounding the investment options is designated the tradespace. The tradeoff between the two is evident in all resource allocation decisions:
Agencies, Services and Commands should begin planning and programming to resource their implementation of the GII as required to support their mission in accordance with this community-based Master Plan. Requirements for global readiness as well as responsive support to the high OPTEMPO requirements of specific missions should be the primary consideration of the GII stakeholders.
The GII will provide geospatial information over common communications links. Within the DoD, NIMA will make this information available to the Unified Command and Joint Task Force level.
DoD Commands and Services are responsible for the architecture, equipment, and connectivity needed to disseminate and exploit the geospatial Framework at and below the Unified Command/Joint Task Force (JTF) level. This is far from a trivial issue, as this infrastructure must support dissemination downward through the force, horizontal exchanges between adjacent elements, and a return flow of value-added information. Much of the information generated and exchanged at these levels will be very detailed, time-sensitive, and situation-specific, and the potential is great, without careful design and management, for choking limited tactical communications, storage devices, and computing platforms.
All stakeholders should program resources to support the advancement of commercial solutions based on the interoperability requirements of the GII. This will require commitment of resources to maintain links to and viable presence within supporting standards organizations.
NIMA’s action plan, or Roadmap, repre-sents the starting point for a broader base of community management and control over implementation of the GII. The Road-map is a dynamic plan that will continue to be updated and extended to reflect the ability of stakeholder organizations to execute their associated policy or doctrine, planning, programming and acquisition activities related to the specific components of the GII. While providing guidance, direction and capability milestones, the Roadmap allows stakeholder organizations self-direction in the approach and the rate by which they transition. The Roadmap, at Section 6.1 and summarized in Figure 5-3:
| Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| IPT Process | Implement and sustain a community based engineering & management and development process | Institute a spiral engineering and management approach for current and future acquisitions | ||
| Standards, Architecture and Interoperabiliy | Design an integrated GII domain architecture as part of USIGS | Develop an integrated USIGS Data Model for imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial info (GI) | Achieve JTA compliance and develop necessary extensions for GII | Fully integrated USIGS supports GII requirements for the national security communities |
| Requirements | Develop system to collect and manage mission information requirements vice product requirements | Implemement and populate a web-based information requirements system | Revise JMRR/C status evaluation to reflect information requirements and holdings | Fully operational web-based mission/task information requirements system |
| Data Acquisition | Negotiate arrangements to acquire other government and commercial data sources | Establish funding program to meet community requirements for commercial imagery | Data sources identified, cataloged, evaluated and accessible via the Framework | |
| Information Production | Demonstrate
Foundation and
MSDS
production
Demonstrate commercial production technologies Demonstrate collaborative production scenario |
Begin full scale
production of
Foundation
Data; complete
500 cells
Generate MSDS for crises and exercises Ramp up co-production with other government agencies, international partners and through outsourcing |
Complete 1,000
more cells of
Foundation
Data, 30% of
stereo and 75%
of mono
imagery rqmts
Begin full scale production of MSDS for operations Certify selected co-producers to do MSDS Process elevation data from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission |
Over JCS Pri 1
& Pri 2 rqmts
areas complete:
-1,500 more cells of Foundation Data - MSDS for all operations - TLM & JOG from Foundation Data -100% aero and hydro chart coverage Complete 100% DTED Level 2 coverage between 60 degrees north & south |
| Information Management and Dissemination | Demo GI common client access tool | Implement fully
integrated
common client
and operational
GI Libraries
Establish regional libraries and local data stores |
USIGS
client/server
environment
fully accessible
through DII
COE
Full capability for smart-push profiling for updates |
Fully
implemented
USIGS
client/server
environment
with
community
wide access to
imagery & GI
Integrated NIMA Library Implemented |
| Information Applications | Demonstrate GII baseline of GOTS and COTS applications | Demo
COTS/GOTS
combined
solutions for
Mission
Specific Apps
Coordinate USIGS architecture with DII COE JMTK program Define software applications approval process |
Field GII
applications
through USIGS
development
program
Support development of DII COE compliant commercial apps solutions Establish reuse library for non-DII COE community applications |
Fully integrate GII applications into the user's information environment |
| Investment Strategy | Stakeholder organizations develop Annexes to the GII Master Plan | Tie implementation of GII to stakeholder strategic plans and IT Plans | In accordance with the ITMRA and GPRA, begin reporting performance of achievement against strategic and IT plans |
Figure 5-3 Summary Roadmap to the GII
To minimize risks associated with successfully achieving the GII, a continuous risk identification and analysis process must be used to focus on mitigation strategies. A key part of the IPT effort has been the identification of key risks that are "roadblocks" to the attainment of the GII. These risks, along with their rating, mitigation strategy and mitigation status are shown on Figure 5-4. Data standards, multi-level security, integration, and communications infrastructure are risks which impact all of USIGS. Therefore we have changed risk mitigation strategies in these areas from standalone efforts to strategies based on support of and coordination with the wider scope USIGS activities. This approach will assure that any GII issues associated with data standards, communications, and security are factored into the USIGS.
| RISK | Stakeholder Buy-in | Transition Management | Framework Population | Communications | Multi-level Security | COTS Integration | Standards | |
| Risk Rating | Medium | Medium | Medium | High | Medium | High | Medium | |
| GII Risk Description | Need User and
Stakeholder
"Buy-In" of GII Vision. |
Need to engineer smooth transition from current product based processes to future mission information based processes. | Need to identify technology for rapid elevation and feature extraction and attribution in a multi-sensor environment. | USIGS Communications infrastructure needs to handle additional data associated with GI. | Need to identify and develop the appropriate MLS approach. | Need to minimize difficulties of multi-vendor COTS (S/W and H/W) integration. | Need to account for uncertainties in emerging Standards. Need data element standardization across Geospatial, Imagery and Intel communities. | |
| Risk
Impact
to the GII |
GII vision and
Master Plan not
adopted.
Stakeholders do not
apply resources
to GII efforts. GII 97 does not evolve fully to GII. |
Inability to meet current product requirements. | Not able to perform rapid/timely population or densification of Framework. | GII can not support required mission timelines. | Large investment of resources required to duplicate and maintain multiple GI security levels. | Increased costs development and maintenance costs associated with having vendors provide custom modifications and "glueware". | Interoperability of systems not realized. Scaleability of GII 97 to full GII negated. | |
| GII IPT Mitigation Strategy | 1. Develop and
Implement
Marketing Strategy.
2. Identify key "pressure points" within Stakeholder Organizations. 3. Track stakeholder Appendices in Master Plan. 4. Develop information video that presents vision. 5. Hold "Town Meetings" within NIMA. 6. Publish Newsletter. 7. Field demonstration data sets for high interest areas. |
1. Identify all current
products and their
production systems.
2. Identify current "retirement plans" for NIMA systems and subsystems. 3. Obtain current NIMA upgrade/migration plans. 4. Assess each product for relevancy. 5. Identify future information needs. 6.Establish Draft GII Performance Requirements. 7. Assess how new systems and / or processes will satisfy the requirement for mission information. 8. Assess convergence of GII efforts and NIMA upgrade/migration plans. 9. Identify gaps/shortfalls. 10. Modify GII and/or migration effort as required. 11. Adjust steps 1 through 10 as required and repeat for next GII spiral. |
1. Acquire and
implement
existing
baseline
solutions
available
through
Government
sources.
2. Utilize GPF to evaluate data production strategies using COTS and GOTS. 3. Assess current automated extraction and attribution technologies as part of spiral development process. 4. Perform 2 year, 5 year technology forecast. 5. Adjust steps 2 and 3 as required and repeat for next GII spiral. |
1. Establish GII
communications
performance
requirements
(e.g. timelines)
based on
organizational
push/pull needs
for GII data.
2. Size GI communication needs against projected USIGS capacities (normal and surge operational modes) - Assess availability, redundancy, vulnerabilities (e.g. of commercial circuits), and degraded capabilities. 3. Reassess USIGS architecture, GII operational concept and GI communication requirements. Provide input to USIGS. 4. Adjust steps 1 through 3 as required and repeat for next GII spiral. |
1. Assess
USIGS
MLS
approach
from a GII
perspective
and identify
any issues.
2. Evaluate/trade off various MLS approaches needed for unique aspects of GII. Provide as input to USIGS. 3. Adjust steps 1 through 2 as required and repeat for next GII spiral. |
1. Generate
and utilize
data model.
2. Evaluate/implement middleware products. 3. Define/control API's/IDL 4. Implement object wrappers for legacy S/W 5. Track architectural and standards efforts within Government (SCC) and Industry (OGC, OMG). |
1. Monitor and
participate in
ongoing data
model and
standardization
activities for
convergence:
- USIGS Data Model - IT Standards JTA (DII/COE) vs. OGC and other commercial. -Metadata standard effort (FGDC, USIGS, OGC, OMG, ISO) -Evolution of vector, gridded, and raster formats 2. Solicit industry input. 3. Repeat for each GII spiral. | |
| GII Mitigation Status | Steps 2, 3,4,5, and 6 Completed. Steps 1 and 7 Underway. Level reduced to Medium. | Steps 1 through 9
underway.
No change in risk level. |
Step 1 complete. Steps 2 and 3 underway. No change in risk level. | Steps 1 and 2 initiated. No change in risk level. | Step 1 underway. No change in risk level. | Mitigation strategy initiated in May 1997. | Steps 1 and 2 underway by GII IPT and USIGS working groups. No change in risk level. |
Figure 5-4 GII Risk Management Table
Success means achieving the GII’s goals for mission support and community-wide benefits
Success will be measured by the extent to which the stakeholder community achieves the goals of the GII. In order to track the progress toward these goals, NIMA will solicit feedback each year from the Stakeholders to assess the community’s achievements and challenges (see Figure 5-5). This information about successes and shortcomings of the GII effort will be distributed and used by the community to focus resources appropriately and to better manage associated risks.
Figure 5-5 GII Report Card
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| IPT Process | Implement a community assisted planning, engineering and management spiral development process |
Transition IPT community
planning initiatives to core
NIMA activities
Institute a spiral engineering and management approach for current and future acquisitions |
GII in place to fulfill geospatial information requirements of the national security communities | |
|
Standards,
Architecture, Interoperability Architecture |
Document the architectural
concepts and vision for the
GII
Establish the GII Domain as part of USIGS Define the USIGS Architectures and Reference Model |
Integrate GII into the
USIGS environment
Establish the USIGS Architecture, Reference Model; document the NIMA systems migration and USIGS implementation process |
Integrate USIGS into
Defense Information
Infrastructure (DII) and
other CINC/C4I
architectures
Implement the USIGS Migration Plan and the USIGS Interoperability Profile (UIP) |
Achieve a fully integrated JV 2010 architecture for USIGS; support the GII requirements for Intelligence, C2, Modeling & Simulation, and Civil communities |
|
Standards |
Identify geospatial
information standards and
related standards for
assessment in the
Geospatial Prototyping
Facility (GPF) and for
future designs
Assess GII compliance with the DII COE and with the JTA V1.0 |
Propose changes to the JTA
as a result of the GII 97
findings
Establish the USIGS process for achieving DII COE compliance |
Propose changes to the JTA to support the implementation of USIGS standards for imagery and geospatial information | |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
|
Standards,
Architecture, Interoperability Standards (cont.) |
Begin defining USIGS OGE Services in terms of distributed computing and object technology |
Identify the USIGS process
for certifying distributed
computing objects
Develop interfaces for USIGS Mission Specific Applications, Common Support Facilities and OGE Services using community standards forums (OGC, OMG, etc.) |
Work with DISA to
implement a process for
achieving DII COE
compliance using object
based services
Implement object based services to support imagery and geospatial information processing |
Object based services implemented to facilitate future USIGS upgrade through technology insertion |
|
Interoperability |
Asses use of commercial
technology to meet
interoperability goals
Assist vendors in achieving DII COE compliance for selected COTS products |
Encourage commercial
integration of imagery and
geospatial information apps
based on object technology
and reuse of OGE Services
Assist commercial community efforts to migrate COTS through DII COE certification process |
USIGS distributed
computing environment and
OGE Services fully
implemented
Assist commercial community efforts to develop COTS object based solutions which meet DII COE compliance in a distributed computing environment. |
USIGS OGE Services and distributed computing environment implemented in the DII COE |
|
Data Model |
Complete USIGS Data
Model for:
-Landforms and terrain -Aeronautical Info -Hydro/Bathy -Imagery |
Complete:
-USIGS Data Model for cultural features -USIGS metadata model Harmonize USIGS Data Model with: -IMINTdata model -SEDRIS data model -DoD Enterprise model -OGC/commercial model |
Implement USIGS Data Model and open data exchange standards | |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| Requirements |
Define specifications for
Foundation Feature Data
Include FFD in RAS Develop and field a requirements system prototype for mission/task information requirements Define MSDS rqmts and formulate MSDS specs for selected products Identify high-leverage exercises and demos Conduct data set test and acceptance |
Implement web-based
mission/task information
rqmts system with links to
RAS and the metadata
catalog
Begin population of the mission/task information requirements system using command test cases Transition MSDS development to appropriate NIMA organizations Develop a mission/task readiness assessment process |
Complete population of
web-based mission /task
information rqmts system
Revise JMRR/C status evaluation for cmds to show mission information rqmts and Foundation Info holdings Continue MSDS spec development for new mission areas as required Revise CJCSI 3901.1 |
Web-based mission/task
information requirements
system fully operational
Perform full JMRR / C-status reporting |
|
Data Acquisition
New Source Data and Qualified Data |
Negotiate arrangements to acquire commercial data and have access to US and foreign government data and products |
Establish funding program
to meet community rqmts
for commercial imagery and
geospatial information
Establish criteria for acceptance of Qualified Data |
Data sources identified,
cataloged and evaluated
relative to customer needs
User access to Qualified Data available via the Framework |
|
|
Information Production
Foundation Data
Production
|
Demonstrate limited production in the GPF of all types of data included in the GII Foundation. |
Direct internal and contract
resources to support
generation of Foundation
Data
Complete 500 cells of Foundation Data |
Achieve full-up information
generation capability for
Foundation Data
Complete an additional 1000 cells of Foundation Data |
Complete an additional 1500 cells of Foundation Data |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
|
Information Production
Foundation Data Production (cont.) |
Demonstrate limited
production in the GPF of all
types of data included in the
GII Foundation:
-Controlled Imagery -Terrain Elevation -Vector Features -Aero/Nautical Navigation Safety Info -Hydro/Bathy -Gravity/Magnetics |
Initiate major ramp up of
DPPBD and CIB
production
Implement GI production flexible workgroup clusters using COTS hardware/software |
Complete 30% of DPPDB
and 75% of CIB over JCS
Pri 1 and Pri 2 reqs areas
Accept elevation data from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission |
100% DTED Level 2 coverage between latitudes 60N and 60S |
|
Mission Specific Data Set Production |
Demonstrate prototype
production of MSDS in
GII 97 Demonstrate ingest of aero/nautical nav safety info, hydro/bathy, and geo place names in the GPF for exploitation in the production of MSDS |
Begin generation of MSDS
against rqmts. Generate
MSDS on demand for
operational exercises
Implement IA/GI cell using COTS hardware/software for synergy evaluation Complete required MSDS corresponding to Foundation Data production areas |
Generate MSDS for all
operations
Prototype new information views including fused data sets and hardcopy graphics |
|
|
Co-Production and Collaborative Production |
Initiate other US gov and
commercial production of
Foundation Data
Demo ONC/GNC/JNC production from VMap 0 via CRADA Demonstrate collaborative production scenario |
Negotiate international
partner co-production of
Foundation Data
Initiate commercial ONC, GNC, JNC production based on VMap 0 |
Certify selected co-producers for production of
MSDS
Collaborative analysis and production applications implemented |
Full co-production capability |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
|
Information Production
(cont.)
Product Generation from Foundation Data and MSDS |
Prototype TLM, ITD, TTD,
RTAD, City Graphic, JOG
and VMap from Framework
Information.
Prototype nautical chart production from DNC and other Framework Information Prototype aeronautical charts and JOG-A from ADM information ingested as part of Framework Information |
Begin production of ITD,
TTD, RTAD, and JOG
products over requirements
areas
Begin production of alternative City Graphics/NEO products Demonstrate rapid TLM production from Foundation Limited production of nautical charts Limited production of aeronautical charts Demo nautical and aero chart production using commercial based production workgroup |
Begin TLM production
based on Foundation Data
Begin nautical data maintenance and product generation based on Foundation Data Begin aeronautical data maintenance and product generation based on Foundation Data Highest demand NIMA products converted to production using Framework Information as source |
Expand production of Foundation Data through other global product and MSDS programs |
|
Data Maintenance |
Demo initial process for integrating value-added and other "corrections" data (includes updates to topographic, aeronautical, nautical, and navigation safety coverages) |
Demo integrated coverage
maintenance
Demo use of integrated coverage maintenance for incorporation of value-added data in data maintenance |
Implement integrated coverage maintenance | |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| Information Management & Dissemination |
Demonstrate geographic
information common client
access tool
Begin accepting selected value-added data from user sites |
Implement fully integrated
common client access tool
Establish regional GI libraries and local data stores Prototype GI Library for user access Update of Framework Information to CINC/JTF level via transportable media and common communications networks (both secure and open) Prototype smart-push/pull profiling for information delivery and updating |
Implement community-wide
access:
-National/Civil/Intelligence/ DoD -International Partners (for selected coverages) USIGS client/server environment fully accessible through DII/COE Operational GI Library implemented with both user and internal NIMA access Update of Framework Information from CINC/JTF level to users via transportable media and common communications networks (both secure and open) Implement full capability smart-push profiling for updates |
Fully integrate USIGS
client server environment
with community wide
access to GI and imagery
Integrated NIMA Library implemented |
| Information Applications |
Demo GII services using
GOTS and COTS in GII 97
using Foundation & MSDS
Report on use of COTS to meet application requirements |
Demo COTS/GOTS
combined solutions for
Mission Specific
Applications
Pass requirements and technology assessment to DISA MCG&I working group Coordinate USIGS architecture with DII COE JMTK program |
Field GII applications
through USIGS
development program
Develop policies for passing GOTS solutions to industry for inclusion in COTS packages Support development of DII COE compliant commercial solutions |
Fully integrate GII applications into the users' information environment |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| Information Applications (cont.) | Use Geospatial Techreps to provide field demos and support exercises |
Define software
applications approval
process
Demonstrate on-line reuse library for non-DII COE community applications Institute community process for shared mission-specific applications Extend Techrep capabilities to include remote replication demo of combined IA/GI exploitation operations |
Begin testing of software
components (COTS and
GOTS) for approval
Establish reuse library for non-DII COE community applications Submit DII COE compliant applications to DISA reuse library Begin fielding integrated IA/GI USIGS Techrep teams |
USIGS IA/GI field exploitation capability fully integrated with user information infrastructures |
|
Doctrine,
Training & Force Structure |
Develop and initiate GII
Joint Training Programs
immediately
Release Joint Pub 2-03, JTTP for GI&S Support to Joint Operations |
Budget for Service Force
Structures to reflect
operational rqmts of the GII
Develop Service Doctrine and Service Training Develop NIMC training based on Framework |
Deliver Service Training
Deliver NIMC training based on Framework Release doctrine based on fielded USIGS/DII capabilities |
Begin deploying modified GII force structure |
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| Prototypes, Exercises & Demonstrations |
Mission focused support
provided to selected
ACTD's using preliminary
components of GII 97
Components of GII 97 identified and assembled GII 97 used to provide support to STOW 97 |
Provide GII support
through USIGS
development programs to:
-JWID -Unified Endeavor -Selected DARPA ACTD's |
||
|
Verification &
Validation |
Test and verification completed on GII 97 based on support provided to STOW 97, Unified Endeavor, Global Guardian, and Division XXI |
Verify support meets
mission information
requirements for each
military exercise mission
area
Exercise prototype C-status evaluations in terms of Foundation and mission-specific data for one command |
Perform C-Status evaluations in terms of Foundation and mission-specific data for a command | Perform C-status evaluations in terms of Foundation and mission-specific data for all commands |
|
Commercial Technology
Opportunities |
Perform functional
decomposition of GII
requirements
Develop technology matrix Identify evaluation criteria Conduct technology assessment Report results of industry outreach |
Widen scope of commercial
participation
Demonstrate solutions compliant with interoperability specifications |
||
| GII Activity | GII 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 2000 |
| Investment Strategy | Stakeholder organizations develop Annexes to the GII Master Plan | Tie implementation of GII to stakeholder strategic plans and IT plans | In accordance with ITMRA and GPRA, begin reporting performance of achievement against strategic and IT plans |
Acronyms
| 3-D | three-dimensional |
| ACOM | U.S. Atlantic Command |
| ACTD | Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration |
| ADM | Aeronautical Data Maintenance system |
| ANSI | American National Standards Institute |
| AOI | area of interest |
| AOR | area of responsibility |
| API | application programming interface |
| ARC | Equal Arc Second Raster Chart/Map |
| ASD C3I | Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence |
| BAA | broad area announcement |
| Bathy | bathymetry |
| C2 | command and control |
| C4I | command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence |
| C4ISR | command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance |
| c-status | readiness assessment |
| CADRG | Compressed ARC Digitized Raster Graphics |
| CD | Compact Disk (as in CD-ROM) |
| CD-ROM | Compact Disk - Read-Only Memory |
| CFS | Center for Standards |
| CIB | Controlled Image Base |
| CINC | Commander-in-Chief |
| CISA | C4I Integration Support Activity |
| CJCSI | Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction |
| COE | common operating environment |
| COTS | commercial off-the-shelf |
| CRADA | Cooperative Research and Development Agreement |
| DARPA | Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency |
| DCI | Director, Central Intelligence |
| DCW | Digital Chart of the World |
| DDDS | Defense Data Dictionary System |
| DIA | Defense Intelligence Agency |
| DII | Defense Information Infrastructure |
| DII COE | Defense Information Infrastructure Common Operating Environment |
| DISA | Defense Information Systems Agency |
| DMA | Defense Mapping Agency |
| DNC | Digital Nautical Chart |
| DoD | Department of Defense |
| DoDDir | DoD Directive |
| DPPDB | Digital Point Positioning Data Base |
| DSB | Defense Science Board |
| DTED | Digital Terrain Elevation Data |
| DTOP | Digital Topographic Data |
| EOS | Earth Observing System |
| EUCOM | U.S. European Command |
| FFD | Foundation Feature Data |
| FGDC | Federal Geographic Data Committee |
| FY | fiscal year |
| GBS | Global Broadcast Service |
| GI | geospatial information |
| GII | Geospatial Information Infrastructure |
| GII 97 | Geospatial Information Infrastructure, 1997 |
| GI IPT | Geospatial Information Integrated Product Team |
| GIS | geographic information system |
| GI&S | Geospatial Information and Services |
| GNC | Global Navigation Chart |
| GOTS | government off-the-shelf |
| GPF | Geospatial Prototyping Facility |
| GPRA | Government Performance and Results Act |
| GPS | Global Positioning System |
| GSMC | Geospatial Standards Management Committee |
| GUI | graphical user interface |
| H/W | hardware |
| Hydro | hydrography |
| HYSAS | Hydrographic Source Assessment System |
| IA | imagery analyst |
| IDL | Interface Definition Language |
| IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
| IGC | Imagery and Geospatial Community |
| IMINT | imagery intelligence |
| IPRG | Intelligence Program Review Group |
| IPT | integrated product team |
| ISMC | Imagery Standards Management Committee |
| ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
| IT | information technology |
| ITD | Interim Terrain Data |
| ITMRA | Information Technology Management Reform Act |
| JAC | Joint Analysis Center |
| JCS | Joint Chiefs of Staff |
| JIC | Joint Intelligence Center |
| JIMC | Joint Information Management Center |
| JMRR | Joint Monthly Readiness Review |
| JMTK | Joint Mapping Toolkit |
| JNC | Jet Navigation Chart |
| JOG | Joint Operations Graphic |
| JTA | Joint Technical Architecture |
| JTC | Joint Technical Committee |
| JTF | joint task force |
| JTTP | joint tactics, techniques, and procedures |
| JV 2010 | Joint Vision 2010 |
| JWICS | Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System |
| JWID | Joint Warrior Interoperability Demonstration |
| LWD | Littoral Warfare Data |
| MAGTF | Marine Air/Ground Task Force |
| MCG&I | mapping, charting, geopositioning and imagery |
| MIL- | prefix for Military Specification |
| MIL-HDBK | Military Handbook |
| MLS | multi-level security |
| MSDS | Mission-Specific Data Set |
| NII | National Information Infrastructure |
| NIMA | National Imagery and Mapping Agency |
| NIMC | National Imagery and Mapping College |
| NIPRNET | Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network |
| NSDI | National Spatial Data Infrastructure |
| NTM | national technical means |
| OGC | Open Geodata Interoperability Specification (GIS) Consortium |
| OGE | Open Geospatial Exchange |
| OMG | Object Management Group |
| ONC | Operational Navigation Chart |
| OPTEMPO | operational tempo |
| OSD | Office of the Secretary of Defense |
| OSIS | Open Source Information System |
| POM | Program Objective Memorandum |
| Pri | priority |
| Pub | publication |
| RTAD | Relocatable Targets Analysis Data |
| SCC | Standards Coordinating Committee |
| SEDRIS | Synthetic Environment Data Representation & Interchange Specification |
| SIPRNET | Secret Internet Protocol Router Network |
| SRTM | Shuttle Radar Topography Mission |
| STD | standard |
| STOW | Synthetic Theater of War |
| STRATCOM | U.S. Strategic Command |
| S/W | software |
| TAC REC | tactical reconnaissance |
| TBD | to be determined |
| TC | Technical Committee |
| Techrep | technical representative |
| TLM | topographic line map |
| UAF | USIGS Architecture Framework |
| UAV | unmanned aerial vehicle |
| UIP | USIGS Interoperability Profile |
| USIGS | U.S. Imagery and Geospatial Information System |
| UTA | USIGS Technical Architecture |
| UVMap | Urban Vector Map |
| VMap | Vector (Smart) Map |
| VMap0 | VMap Level 0, formerly Digital Chart of the World (DCW) |
| WGS-84 | World Geodetic System, 1984 |
Definitions
Foundation Data: a data set consisting of seven components (controlled and orthorectified monoscopic and stereoscopic imagery, digital elevation, bathymetry, vector features including air and navigation safety, and other globally maintained information such as gravity and magnetics) that is collected near worldwide, independent of missions, that is relatively stable (features change little over time or are updated regularly), accurate, and tied to a common geometry (WGS-84)
Framework: see geospatial Framework
Framework Information: Foundation Data, Mission Specific Data Sets, Qualified Data, and associated metadata
geospatial Framework: a trusted, consistent set of geospatial information and supporting services that provides a coherent frame of reference to support the formation of an integrated view of the mission space
geospatial information (GI): any data that has associated with it some contextual, spatial, and temporal reference; more specifically, a collection of precise spatially co-referenced information about the earth, with temporal tags, arranged in a coherent structure and format to support measurement, mapping, monitoring, modeling, spatial reasoning applications, and terrain evaluation
Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII): the collection of people, doctrine, policies, architectures, standards, and technologies necessary to create, maintain, and utilize geospatial information and services in the context of a geospatial Framework
interoperability: the capability of people, organizations, and equipment to operate effectively together, sharing information so that it can be used across domains; at the system level, interoperability is the ability of two systems or applications to exchange data and for the data to be used by both entities
metadata: graphical or textual information about the content, quality, condition, origins, and characteristics of data
Mission-Specific Data Set (MSDS): further intensification of Foundation Data to greater detail or with additional features and/or attributes to meet mission requirements
Qualified Data Set: data set of known quality and accuracy that has not been integrated or deconflicted with Foundation Data and Mission-Specific Data sets
Unqualified Data: data of unknown quality and accuracy
Other key glossary references
MIL-HDBK-850: Glossary of Mapping, Charting, and Geodetic Terms, 21 JAN 94; online at <http://164.214.2.59/publications/specs/printed/MCG_TERMS>
USIGS Glossary: (TBD)
