220 likes | 567 Views
Implementing ISO 3166. Jacqueline Knudson, DISA PEO-C2C Rick Pearsall, NGA 30 June 2010. Technical Design for ISO 3166. ISO 3166 Status and History. ISO 3166 has been in usage for sometime FIPS 10-4 withdrawn by NIST on 2 Sep 2008
E N D
Implementing ISO 3166 Jacqueline Knudson, DISA PEO-C2C Rick Pearsall, NGA 30 June 2010
Technical Design for ISO 3166 Unclassified
ISO 3166 Status and History • ISO 3166 has been in usage for sometime • FIPS 10-4 withdrawn by NIST on 2 Sep 2008 • Initial rationale comes from the National Technology Transfer Act 1995 / (Public Law 104-113) • Announced through the Federal Register • Sunset/Retirement established by the Document and Information Management TWG for 31Dec 2012 • GWG Metadata Focus group contributed • Request to move both FIPS 10-4 and ISO 3166 to the GWG as the primary TWG is in work • ISO 3166 Tri-graphs adopted in IC ISM circa 2003 • ISO 3166 adopted by DDMS circa 2002 • ISO 3166 adopted under Executive Order 13356/13388 – the PM-ISE standards Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • GWG established an ad-hoc tiger-team at last fall’s plenary session • FIPS 10-4/ISO 3166 withdrawal and transition briefing by NGA • Realization: Two types of transitions • Standard to standard • Paper to reference engineering artifacts • Therefore citing the ISO 3166 with ‘mappings’ to the legacy FIPS 10-4 codes is necessary, but not sufficient for interoperability or optimizing the related investment strategy A reference implementation that is encoded as a reusable engineering artifact would be a high value/high ROI data asset Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • Goal: Model a reference implementation/ common engineering artifact • DOD MWG with IC partners selected Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) as technical method (DOD MWG: 13 Jan 2010) • Test case for SKOS maturation as a DISR/ICSR standard • Produce OWL/RDF • Candidate as a UCORE ‘Common Core’ • Consumed (adopted) by several standards/ specifications/controlled vocabularies such as IC-ISM/ISM.XML, STANAG 1059, re-engineered MIL-STD-2525, etc. Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • Goal: Model a reference implementation/ common engineering artifact (con’t) • End-State: A well managed capability • NSG Standards Registry maintenance tools • Populate to DOD MDR • GV-ES Services for implementation • Composable services • Robust semantic model • DOD MDR artifacts for build time implementation and reuse by other XML schema developments • OWL/RDF • SKOS • XML • Feed back to ISO/TC 46 as an informative annex to ISO 3166 Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • The technical work is guided by: • Governance process • NISO ‘New Work Item’ in development • Formalizes the relationship between this activity and ISO 3166 • Collaborating across interagency, coalition, and industry partners • Dept of State (DoS), IC, DOD, etc • MoD-UK, MoD-France, Germany, and ACT • Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP) forum • Proposed Data Architecture • Configuration management boundaries of the controlled vocabularies • Relationships between controlled vocabularies • Temporal state Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • The technical work is guided by (con’t): • Address stakeholder requirements • Department of State Requirement for ‘Political Recognition’ concept • Started with a ‘profile,’ then ruled it out: • ‘Sub-setting’ creates conflicts with DOD and IC need to keep the codes intact for interchange with allies • Instead, model a political recognition as an attribute • Informal coordination with DoS on 29 Apr 2010, ‘action officer level’ buy-in • Candidate for internationalization, requirement is not unique • Action: Move FIPS 10-4 and ISO 3166 management to the GWG TWG • Requested to take effect on the next DISR cycle – in work Unclassified
ISO 3166 Data Architecture(Political Recognition) ISO 3166 Relationship Country ‘A’ Recognizes Country ‘B’ as “x” or Country ‘A”Does not Recognize Country ‘B’ . . ISO 3166 – Proposed Addition Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • Model the governance and the proposed data architecture to guide the technical work (con’t) • Understand governance structure for managing the sovereign nation definitions and the sub-regions • What level of detail is to be part of ISO 3166? • States and territories – Probably OK • Counties, congressional districts, etc. – Probably not OK • Use relationships • Enable relationship between a ‘country’ and other forms of geospatial entities (sub- and super-regions) or socio-political entities • Controlled Vocabularies/Codes can be managed independently from ISO 3166, as can the relationships • Improves agility/flexibility Unclassified
ISO 3166 Data Architecture(Non-ISO 3166 Subdivisions) ISO 3166 - OWL/SKOS Non-ISO 3166 Subdivision Types Relationship Country ‘A’ is subdivided as States/Province, Counties, Postal Code boundaries, Congressional Districts, etc. Candidate for NSG Registry Unclassified
ISO 3166 Data Architecture(ISO 3166 Part 2: Subdivisions) ISO 3166 – Part 2: Country subdivision code (USA Case) Country ‘A’ is subdivided as States, Provinces, etc. Unclassified
ISO 3166 Data Architecture(Non-ISO 3166 Super-Regions) ISO 3166 Non ISO 3166 - Super-Region Definitions Relationship Country ‘A’ is within Continent ‘B’ NSG Registry Candidate:Geospatial Region Names Unclassified
Country Code Tiger Team(How we got here) • Issues Identified currently • ISO 3166 does not have a way to address ‘political recognition’ • Attribute types perhaps should be common and internationalized with individual countries managing their instance information • ISO 3166 does not have a way to address temporal state of the code’s effective dates • Necessary to manage historical analysis • ISO 3166 is not consistently implemented • In some cases, territories are listed at the same level as the sovereign nation that they belong to • Approach should be consistent so that the taxonomical structure can have engineering rigor Unclassified
Implementing ISO 3166 Unclassified
Implementing ISO 3166 • Technical Issue isn’t FIPS 10-4 versus ISO 3166 • Social issue is the time lag to distribute the information that NIST canceled FIPS 10-4 • Minor translations • Issue most often raised is 3-character versus 2-character implementations • Physical changes in applications/data stores is costly if not done in concert with a major block change • Reality, both will exist and have an appropriate context of usage • Internet standard uses 2-character • IC and BTA mandate the usage of 3-character • Sound rationale in both cases Perception that there must be only one syntax - False Unclassified
Implementing ISO 3166 • Migration Strategy: • Mediate at the ‘exposure point’ • Mitigates cost invasive changes • Back-fit into persisted data stores or inside applications only in concert with block upgrades • Others will naturally retire • Apply n-tiered approaches • Apply at the Net-enabled layer, but not in binary formatted military message standard (e.g., Link-16) networks • DCGS calls this the ‘earliest point of exposure’ Unclassified
Implementing ISO 3166 • Precursor: Support NGA/GWG strategy • Enterprise Services and • NSG Registry for standards maintenance • Maintain the code lists • Populate the DOD Metadata Registry • Transition functions to GWG (in work) • Monitor using Data Services Environment/ Enterprise Authoritative Data Source Registry capability • Automate metrics collection • Similar method to what is under consideration for NR-KPP Exposure Verification Availability of Enterprise Service and Standards maintenance – prevents redundant investment and improves native interoperability Unclassified
Exemplars of ISO 3166 Implementations • NECC/Joint C2 Architectural Guidance • ISO 3166 Trigraphs were adopted in 2006 for developmental activities • Rationale was to align with IC ISM • Applicability to all forms of interfaces and data exposure • DCGS-Enterprise and other programs have already initiated this following IC guidance • Any implementation that is asserting ‘native’ conformance to security tagging is using ISO 3166 (Trigraphs) • Migration Strategies for Standards • MIL-STD-2525C moved from FIPS 10-4 digraphs to ISO 3166 digraphs and an interim move until the standard is fully re-engineered (and federated) • DDMS uses ISO 3166 Unclassified
Backup Slides Unclassified
Country Code Ad-Hoc Team POCs • Lead: Rick Pearsall, NGA, GWG ITSA Focus Group Chair, (703) 814-4556, Richard.A.Pearsall@nga.mil • Jeff Bell, NGA, AFSE Focus Group Chair (314) 676-0293, Jeffrey.R.Bell@nga.mil • Jaci Knudson, DISA PEO-C2C, (703) 882-1442, Jacqueline.Knudson@disa.mil • Ray Ford, DISA GE33, (703) 681-2642, Raymond.Ford@disa.mil • Kate Dolan, NSA, kadolan@nsa.gov • Kathleen Rattell, NSA, (443) 479-6642, khratte@nsa.gov UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
QUESTIONS? www.disa.mil