Modify format for APP-6(C) codes

[clblais]

C2SIM Problem Report / Change Request Submitter Name (s): Curtis Blais for Geir Sletten and Ole Martin Mevassvik Contact email address: Geir.Sletten@ffi.no, Ole-Martin.Mevassvik@ffi.no Submitter Organization(s): FFI Date of Submission: 23 May 2022 Type (Problem Report or Change Request): Problem Report Product: Core Ontology and Specification Problem/Change Description: From: Evaluation of C2SIM for use in Army Course of Action simulation, 22 February 2022, p 13

All symbol codes under TacticalGraphics and UnitSymbol refer to APP-6 edition C, which was superseded by edition D in 2019. C2SIM uses a Symbol ID Code of 15 bytes (mostly letters). It appears, however, that the current symbol codes in C2SIM are defined by MIL-STD-2525C and the Ratification Draft (RD) of APP-6(C). The official APP-6(C) uses a different coding schema. The specification of the symbol format (and/or the reference to APP-6(C)) needs to be changed in a future version of C2SIM.

The C2SIM standard specification actually states that the current versions are APP-6(D) and MIL-STD-2525D.

[clblais]

PDG/PSG needs to decide if some policy is needed for maintaining consistency with these standards as they evolve. Maybe have C2SIM support multiple versions. A specific C2SIM coalition would need to declare which version is being used for that coalition.

[jmpullen2]

With regard to the ontology and derived schema: the 2SIM standard calls for PSG to ensure each version has a unique ID so user groups can define which version they will use.

Mark

clblais wrote on 5/2/23 2:12 PM:

PDG/PSG needs to decide if some policy is needed for maintaining consistency with these standards as they evolve. Maybe have C2SIM support multiple versions. A specific C2SIM coalition would need to declare which version is being used for that coalition.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/issues/18#issuecomment-1531362625, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABN7HSP5GJXFJPW4DUMNEN3XED23BANCNFSM5WXSS2CQ. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[bruno-g]

The C2SIM standard specification actually is not clear about which version of APP-6 to use (C, D...). A clear statement is added, to only reference APP-6-C, in the CWIX branch, with a few renames of the classes / properties. See commit https://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/commit/67c675117293b545218f7a7b613b8fc122a31a99 in cwix-2024 branch for the current proposition.

[clblais]

So, would the idea be that if an APP-6D comes out, the C2SIM PDG would need to decide if the standard should change to the new version or remain on the previous version? This is different than the NETN approach of having a "prefix" to identify which version of which standard is being used to interpret the code.

Can we still separate the concept of entity type from the combined concept of entity symbol standard + symbol code?

Curt

From: bruno-g @.> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:09 AM To: OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts @.> Cc: Blais, Curtis (Curt) (CIV) @.>; Author @.> Subject: Re: [OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts] Modify format for APP-6(C) codes (Issue #18)

NPS WARNING: external sender verify before acting.

The C2SIM standard specification actually is not clear about which version of APP-6 to use (C, D...). A clear statement is added, to only reference APP-6-C, in the CWIX branch, with a few renames of the classes / properties. See commit in cwix-2024 branch: 67c6751https://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/commit/67c675117293b545218f7a7b613b8fc122a31a99

- Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/issues/18#issuecomment-1896239777, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIV5HZDVCT4SEBSLJKIHLKLYPAATDAVCNFSM5WXSS2C2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBZGYZDGOJXG43Q. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.**@.>>

[bruno-g]

@clblais about your last comment: have a look at my other comment in https://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/issues/38 In my current proposition, one could also use APP-6-D with the NamedEntityType class. And I separated the "prefix" inside another attribute of this class: I called it the EntityTypeNamespace. But someone else could make another proposition inside the branch. I already spend too much hours to try to do these modifications "properly" (because of the namespace, the detailed analysis of the NETN attribute about resources, the comments to update/rewrite...). Cannot work on it more.