1. Information Architecture WG: Report of the Fall 2004 Meeting November 16th, 2004 Dan Crichton, NASA/JPL

2. Executive Summary The information architecture white book was discussed Specific focus was on the information architecture (chapter 2) of the document and the emerging model and meta-model concepts An ontology model developed in Protégé of the Information Architecture was discussed in relationship to the need to formally model the information architecture The MOIMS Packaging model was discussed along with its mapping to a the information architecture concepts Several action items were identified including the need to formalize the information architecture model in UML

3. Goals of WG 1.Define a reference end-to-end space information architecture for interoperability and cross-support that encompasses both flight and ground data system operations and provides a common framework for use by standards and systems developers including a. standard functional components for information management b.definition of standard interfaces for information management c.standards in information representation d.standards in defining information processes 2.Define and leverage common methods for representing information architectural views; and 3.Address application layer information management issues including application protocols and data handling and ensure that they are dealt with in a clear and consistent way throughout the end-to-end system; and 4.Work with the SEA System Architecture WG to provide the Information Architecture elements for the Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS) and with the MOIMS WGs to develop the specific standard interfaces & protocols. Make recommendations to the other Working Groups and BoFs about architectural choices and options.

4. Deliverables of WG 1.Define how component and interface information standards within CCSDS fit into the Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS); 2.Identify formal representation methods, tools and approaches that will permit design, modeling, and simulation of information architectural designs including collaboration with SAWG. 3.Write a CCSDS space information architecture recommendation that includes: a.a set of functional information infrastructure components; b.a set of information infrastructure interfaces for information management; c.a set of information descriptors that are capable of representing data across the mission lifecycle; d.a set of interfaces for cross support services, application program interfaces, and information management & access protocols.

5. Progress Achieved It was agreed that the white book is progressing well, but requires updates to clarify its model and the relationship to model-driven standards and approaches (E.g. OMG MDA). It was agreed that the information architecture should be formally modeled and discussed within the information architecture white paper. It was identified and agreed that the formalization of the model should clearly identify the modeling relationships and the criticality of defining meta models for interoperability. It was identified that the Information Architecture should ensure that it has adequately captured the information model defined within OAIS and is adequately represented in the white book.

6. Progress Achieved (Cont…) It was identified and agreed that the term “Object” is used inconsistently in the Information Architecture White Book (Class vs Instance) It was identified and agreed that a “metadata class” is a specialization of the “data class” It was agreed that the information architecture should be formally modeled and discussed within the information architecture. Several other minor updates were identified and will be addressed in the next version of the white book.

7. Open Issues Few core technical issues exist with the information architecture. Largely, the white book needs to expand on some core concepts to better describe them. Coordination efforts need to be worked to ensure that the IA develops as a useful architectural model for other groups. IPR and IAWG need to have coordinated meetings to ensure that the valuable work going on in both groups is connected. Support by agencies considered a risk item to achieving the goals. Several efforts are down stream from the architecture creating inconsistencies between efforts.

8. Action Items Send meeting notes, presentations and comments to IAWG –To: Info Arch WG Members –Due: Due December 15, 2004 Finalize updates to white book including further formalization of the information model based on meeting comments –To: Info Arch WG Members –Due: Due February 2004

9. Resource Problems There may not be enough resource commitments from member agencies to achieve deliverables.

10. Risk Management Update Agencies and projects implementing their own architectures and do not choose to coordinate or adopt any interoperable standards or reference architectures for managing and sharing information. Languages and tools to be used in our work are still under development. Experience and education by agencies in modern architectural approaches (E.g. OMG MDA) may be a barrier towards forward progress.

11. Cross Area WG / BOF Issues Need on-going coordination with MOIMS Information Packaging and Registries (IPR). Information architecture considered an important architecture for guiding SANA development Work with other WGs and BOFs to coordinate architectural choices Coordinate architectures with SEA working groups

12. Resolutions to be Sent to CESG and Then to CMC None

13. New Working Items, New BOFs, etc. None