| ID:Purpose | Standard | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1:Digital exchange of semantically rich information about Battlespace Objects such as units, their structural composition, Plans and Orders etc. | STANAG 5523 – C2 Information Exchange model in conjunction with MIP Data Exchange Mechanism (DEM) Block 2 and the AMN MIP Implementation Profile (published in Annex A to NC3A RD-3188 - AMN MIP Workshop Final Report). | C2IEDM Bussiness Rule F11.2 b is not applicable in the AMN scope.
Implementations shall ensure that the use of CONTEXT-ASSOCIATION does
not create circular references between CONTEXTs.Currently most AMN
members use C2IEDM (MIP-Block 2).
Any addition or expansion of this data model or data dictionaries that is deemed to be of general interest shall be submitted as a change proposal within the configuration control process to be considered for inclusion in the next version of the specification. |
| 2:Expressing digital geographic annotation and visualization on, two-dimensional maps and three-dimensional globes | TIDE Transformational Baseline Vers. 3-0, NATO Vector Graphics
(NVG)
Mandatory: NVG 1.5 Fading (Dec 2011): NVG 1.4 Retired: NVG 0.3 Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), Keyhole Markup Language (KML 2.2) |
NVG shall be used as the standard Protocol and Data Format for
encoding and sharing of information layers between Situational Awareness
and C2 systems.
NVG and KML are both XML-based language schemas for expressing geographic annotations. |
| 3:Exchanging information on Significant Activities (SIGACTs) in support of current operations | U.S.PM Battle Command SIGACT Schema[a] | This schema is used via PASS, webservices and XMPP to exchange SIGACT information at Regional Command level and below. |
| 4:Exchanging information on Incident and Event information to support information exploitation. | Emerging (Jul 2011): Draft EVENTEXPLOITREP XML schema. Under development. Rationale: The coordination between NC3A and US on this work has been stalled due to the lack of funding. | This schema will be used to exchange rich and structured incident/ event information between C2 and Exploitation systems like JOCWatch and CIDNE. National capability developers are invited to contribute to the development of the final EVENTEXPLOITREP XML Schema[b] Until the EVENTEXPLOITREP XML Schema definition is finalised, it is recommended to use the current draft schema also known as OIR (Operational Incident Report). |
| 5:Real time automated data exchange such as radar tracking information
among airborne and land-based tactical data systems beyond line of sight.
Message exchange Over Tactical Data Links |
STANAG 5516, Ed.4:2008 - Tactical Data Exchange (Link 16)
STANAG 5511, Feb 28, 2006 - Tactical Data Exchange (Link 11/11B); see also US MIL-STD 6011 STANAG 5616 Ed 4:2008 - Standards for Data Forwarding between Tactical Data Systems employing Link 11/11B, Link 16 and Link 22. |
AMN members shall follow the specifications for automatic data
exchange of tactical information with and among NATO tactical data
systems, using the data transmission Links designated as Link 11/11B
and Link 16.
Edition 5 of 5516 is ratified, implementation in ISAF needs to be coordinated via the AMN OPT. |
| 6:Exchange of digital Friendly Force Information such as positional tracking information amongst airborne and land-based tactical data systems and C2 systems. | AC/322-D(2006)0066 Interim NFFI Standard for Interoperability of Force Tracking Systems | All positional information of friendly ground forces (e.g. ground forces of Troop Contributing Nations or commercial transport companies working in support of ISAF Forces) shall be as a minimum made available in a format that can be translated into the NFFI V1.3 format. |
| 7:Message formats for exchanging information in low bandwidth environment between systems enabled for processing Military Message Format | STANAG 7149 Ed. 4 - NATO Message Catalogue - APP-11(C)
Minimum set of messages supported by AMN Core:
Emerging Dec 2012
|
The following messages that are not compliant with STANAG 7149
Ed 4. will be accepted by the AMN Core:
Change request proposals reflecting the requirements for those non-standard messages should be submitted within the configuration management process of ADatP-3 by those nations that are the primary originators of those messages. |
| 8:Military Symbology interoperability | STANAG 2019, Ed.5:2008, Joint Smbology- APP-6(B)
U.S. MIL-STD 2525 B Change 2, Common Warfighting Symbology |
Note that both standards are not fully compatible with each other. A translation service may need to be provided at the AMN integration core. |
| 9:Providing a standard software interface for exchanging information about sensor planning, including information about capabilities of sensors, tasking of a sensors and status of sensor planning requests. | Emerging (July 2012): OGC 09-000: OGC Sensor Planning Service Implementation Standard V.2.0, dated 2011-03-28 | For the AMN, Sensor Planning Service implementations shall adhere to the SOAP binding as defined in OGC 09-000. |
|
[a] Document currently not included in NISP Vol.2 (ed.E), as it was not available from the author. [b] See http://tide.act.nato.int/tidepedia/index.php?title=TP_112:_Event_Exploitation_Reports_(EVENTEXPLOITREP) |
||