| Purpose | Standard | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2/3/3.1 | Interoperability between MIP Block 2/3/3.1 is on going. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
|
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. STANAG 5616 Ed 4:2008 - Standards for Data Forwarding between Tactical Data Systems employing Link 11/11B, Link 16 and Link 22. |
CEMN 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 CEMN Core:
Emerging Dec 2012
|
Assumption is that CE will use standard message formats. |
| Military Symbology interoperability |
STANAG 2019, Ed.5:2008, Joint Symbology- 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 CEMN integration core. |
| 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 CEMN, 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. |
||