OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up Sam Chambers, Joint Staff J7 Glen Quesenberry, AGC Jay Freeman, CAE USA 25 April 2018

Agenda Joint Staff J7 – Mr. Chambers Mandate for Change JS J7 Direction CDB Entry into the DISR AGC – Mr. Quesenberry AGC Engagement and Activities Improving AGE Interoperability, Consistency by Streamlining AGE SSGF Standards, Formats and Services CAE USA – Mr. Freeman Why should there be a OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up? Proposed CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up Methodology Solutions Under Consideration for Utilizing GeoPackage within CDB Summary Acknowledgements & Others Collaborators Kevin Bentley, Cognitics Ron Moore, Leidos Jeffrey Clinger, Leidos

Mr. Sam Chambers, EAD Data Lead Joint Staff J7

Policies / Directives: Mandate for Change Policies / Directives: DepSecDef Memo, dated 06May2013, Subj: Joint Information Environment (JIE) Implementation DoD CIO Memo, dated 11Jul2013, DoD Component Data Center Consolidation Implementation Plan DoD CIO Guidance for Implementing the JIE, dated 12Sep2013 DoD CIO Memo, 06Nov2014, DoD Cloud Way Forward Report for Public Release DoD CIO Memo, 15Dec2014, Updated Guidance on Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services DoD CIO Memo, dated 10Feb2015, CCMD Need for Accelerate JIE and Mission Partner Environment Capabilities Efficiency Need ability to provide unique training environments – build what you need Fidelity Trainers have varying need for M&S fidelity (usually related to C4ISR input requirement) One-size-fits-all approach (either JLVC or JTLS) is too restrictive Unsustainability of Current M&S JLVC is a federation of Service/Joint developed models Annual integration costs (version control) Existing Federation Architecture outdated DoD Mandates to Move M&S to DoD IT Enterprise Cloud first, services-based IT Discoverability, Accessibility, Usability Driving joint-ness deeper = joint training context Capability accessible at NIPR/SIPR access points Trainers have to compete for simulation center support Technology Changes More can be automated to reduce manpower costs Existing infrastructure – 30 year old technology Joint M&S Objectives: Relevant to today and tomorrow’s Warfighter Needs Less Expensive to Sustain Within DoD IT Enterprise Framework Accessible from Home-Station Optimized for Cloud & Faster/Better Hardware A Composable Training Environment (Right-Sized) Secure and efficient Expanding capabilities less costly

JS J7 Direction The JS J7 vision is to adopt OGC standards when possible, evolve OGC standards to meet the mission needs when necessary, and create new standards as a last resort.

CDB Entry into the DISR What: Nomination of Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.® (OGC®) CDB v1.0 as an “emerging” standard for the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) Who: Joint Staff J7 Why: First step in establishing a Joint Training Technical Standards Profile. JS J7, USMC, and USSOCOM utilize CDB as their synthetic environment data standard for modeling and simulation. CDB also possesses attributes that make it a strong enterprise standard candidate for Joint training Approach: JTSE WG established a writing team for developing/coordinating the draft CDB Citation. Joint Staff J7, USSOCOM, USMC, USAF, NRO, NGA DMSCO—mentored through the process; OGC—CDB SWG Chair After JTSE WG approval, JS J7 submitted the citation CR to the JESC via the M&S Tech Working Group (M&S TWG) as primary & Geospatial Working Group (GWG) as secondary. Outcome: CDB v1.0 was accepted into the DISR as an emerging standard. During the process, GWG and M&S WG raised concerns with the CDB due to its use of Feature Attribute Coding Catalogue (FACC)-based data model and ESRI Shapefiles. The Joint Staff is working with the US Army to address the vector format concerns. Issue: CDB uses both Feature Attribute Coding Catalogue (FACC)-based data model and ESRI shapefiles within its feature data content. This could limit interoperability with the GEOINT community because shapefiles do not support the newest NGA data model and attribute schemes Status: Per the OCG TB13: OGC CDB 1.0.1 standard has a comprehensive extension mechanism for supporting additional and/or multiple Feature Data Dictionaries CDB is not limited to or rigidly constrained by FACC OGC CDB Testbed 13 proved the capability to translate from the CDB FACC attribution codes to the  National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) Application Schema (NAS) Draft report provides both short term backwards-compatible revisions to OGC CDB (i.e. CDB V1.2+) and longer term major revisions to OGC CDB (i.e. CDB 2.0+) Way Ahead: Conduct additional meetings with the GEOINT TWG to craft additional CR language to address the issue: shortfall, work around, and way-ahead to update CDB GWG desired language:  "Like the SEDRIS standards, we believe caveats are needed for inclusion in the citation. Therefore, please add the following. Under Applicability, add this paragraph: "Although widely utilized across the M&S community, at present the CDB uses both the (sunsetted) FACC-based data model and Esri shapefiles within its feature data content, an outmoded practice potentially hindering interoperability between domains. Until the CDB standard is updated to a more current state of GEOINT data, it is not recommended for use in encoding and/or exchanging GEOINT data for planning, decision-making, and action for national security operations beyond those specific to the Modeling and Simulation community."   Under Guidance for implementing this Standard, add this sentence: "Users of CDB should be aware the feature content is based on a no longer supported GEOINT data model and the content is likely outmoded."'

Mr. Glen Quesenberry, M&S SME Army Geospatial Center

Systems Acquisition Support Directorate Community Engagement Specifics Organization Specific Efforts: Geopackage Common Database (CDB) 3D Globe Tiling Raster Vector 3D Surface Support Standard Development Actively participates in OGC Domain Working Groups Reviews Draft Standards Votes DGIWG: Provides Input on Standards to NGA ABCANZ: Actively participates by Leading Working Group, Writing Standards, and Writing Activity Plan for 2018. SoSE&I (COE V3 & V4) Provides Guidance to the CEs on Existing Standards and Technical Guidance. Submits Change Requests for COE V3 and V4. AGC Systems Acquisition Support Directorate Enterprise Support Branch AGC is interested in standards, in order to support the Army and the Army Acquisition Community. AGC Actively participates in DWGs and SWGs within OGC to provide input for standard development. We review draft standards and vote to allow or disallow standards to become OGC standards. NGA is the government lead for DGIWG, but we play a supporting role in this organization for standards development. For ABCANZ, due to limits in manpower/budget, we are no longer leading the geospatial working group. The Common Operating Environment (COE) is a list of standards that Army Systems must follow (or get a waiver). Architecture, Standards, and Test and Certification (AST&C)

Improving AGE Interoperability, Consistency by Streamlining AGE SSGF Standards, Formats and Services FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 ELEVATION MAP BACKGROUND GEOREFERENCED IMAGERY FEATURE DTED (E) DGED (E) NITF [JPEG 2000]* (M/I) GeoPackage (M/I/F) RPF** (M/I) DTED RPF GeoTIFF Geospatial PDF NITF [JPEG2000]* GeoPackage VPF ShapeFile FGDB GeoPDF TMS TDI MrSID JPEG2000 * NITF wrapping JPEG2000 ** If not sunsetted (F) - Feature (E) - Elevation (I) - Imagery (M) - Basemaps Data Formats Migration Web Services Migration (i.e., WMS, WMTS, WFS, WCS)

Jay Freeman, Software Architect CAE USA

Why should there be a OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up? Work began ~2012; OGC standard since 2014 Designed as an open, standards-based, platform-independent, portable, self-describing, compact format for transferring geospatial information Established and emerging user base with the US Army, SOCOM, NGA, and GEOINT communities Work began ~2005; OGC standard since 2016 Designed as a open, deterministic structure of commonly used geospatial and 3D modeling formats suitable for ground, air, and sea simulations Established and emerging user base with the US Joint Staff, SOCOM, NGA, USMC, FVEY Nations and GEOINT communities OGC CDB & GeoPackage are geospatial data standards used by various US DoD Groups with emerging use cases and requirements From a functionality point of view, what does the OGC CDB & GeoPackage Venn Diagram look like?

Why should there be a OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up? Static 3D Objects Symbology Moving 3D Objects Vectors File Based Extensions Internal definitions Elevation One File Internal definitions Many Files Determinism Imagery Portability Raster Materials OGC CDB & GeoPackage share multiple geospatial core components; however, the implementation methodologies differ with respect to geospatial storage on disk and determinism

Why should there be a OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up? Symbology Static 3D Objects Vectors Moving 3D Objects X File Based ? X Extensions Internal definitions Elevation One File Determinism Internal definitions X Many Files Imagery Portability Raster Materials Creating a OGC CDB & GeoPackage mash-up offers an open, standards-based, platform-independent, portable, deterministic structure of geospatial data to support hand held device to simulators

Why should there be a OGC CDB & GeoPackage Mash-up? Improves OGC CDB standard by: Supplements the existing Shapefile Best Practice with a new Best Practice based on other OGC approved standards Removes limitations found in Shapefiles (e.g. DBF character limits for column names) Leveraging new technology to improve the representation of feature relationships (e.g. supporting Spatial Lite relationship tables) Improving data distribution by reducing file counts (e.g. storing multiple geometry types and CDB tiles in single file) Continues the effort to align the U.S. Army’s Modeling and Simulation geospatial terrain data representation with the U.S. Army’s Operation Mission Command geospatial terrain data representation Begins to converge common geospatial data interests between AGC and J7 Evolving and converging terrain standards will improve data reuse, runtime terrain database correlation, innovation, and system interoperability

Proposed Methodology OGC GeoPackage Standards Working Group (SWG) continues its current course AGC will work with the OGC CDB SWG to define CDB’s usage of GeoPackage in lieu of ESRI Shapefiles Proposed plan of action is to: Develop an approach to apply the CDB Conceptual Model (Volume 11) and CDB Model and Physical Data Store Structure (Volume 1) to GeoPackage for Vectors The objective is to work within the constraints of Volume 1 & 11 Section 4 of Volume 1 states “… CDB structured data store supports other file types. For example, an OGC GeoPackage file could be stored in the CDB structure.” Create a GeoPackage draft equivalent to CDB Volume 4: Use of Shapefiles for Vector Data Storage Best Practice Develop an open source capability to migrate OGC CDB 1.1 using the ESRI Shapefile Best Practice to OGC CDB 1.1 using the draft GeoPackage Best Practice Perform unit and performance testing of CDB using the draft GeoPackage Best Practice Present material to the CDB SWG for incorporation into the standard The design of using GeoPackage in CDB must maintain a suitable level of performance for runtime applications

Solutions Under Consideration for Utilizing GeoPackage within CDB Design #1 – Replace each Shapefile in CDB with a GeoPackage Benefits: Least disruptive to current CDB adopters; reduces files for vectors by a factor of 4:1; No performance issues (opening/reading content is less than 10ms) Drawbacks: Leverages very few of GeoPackage’s capabilities Design #2 – For each CDB data layer per geotile, make each CDB tile a table in GeoPackage Benefits: Minor level of disruptive to current CDB adopters; significant file reduction by a factor of 1000’s:1 (depends on CDB fidelity level) Drawbacks: Performance issues opening a GPKG as the number of tables becomes large (more information on a subsequent chart) Design #3 – For each CDB data layer per geotile CDB tiles are consolidated in a table by LOD Benefits: Significant file reduction by a factor of 1000’s:1 (depends on CDB fidelity level); No performance issues (opening/reading content is less than 10ms) Drawbacks: Medium level of disruption to current CDB adopters (to find data for a particular CDB tile requires a UREF SQL query) Design #4 – For each geotile, CDB tiles are consolidated in a table by data layers Drawbacks: High level of disruption to current CDB adopters (to find data for a particular CDB tile requires a LOD & UREF SQL query)

Summary OGC CDB & GeoPackage are geospatial data standards used by various US DoD Groups with emerging use cases and requirements OGC CDB & GeoPackage share multiple geospatial core components; however, the implementation methodologies differ with respect to geospatial storage on disk The existing OGC CDB and GeoPackage standards, from a requirements point of view, support a technology mashup Preliminary experimentation demonstrates substantial gains in data access, transfer, and file storage of CDB data by using “GeoCDB” “GeoCDB” – an OGC CDB & GeoPackage mash-up offers a open, standards-based, platform-independent, portable, deterministic structure of geospatial data to support hand held device to simulators