D.4. Communities of Interest Services

107. Definition: Communities of Interest (COI) Services support one or many collaborative groups of users with shared goals, interests, missions or business processes.

108. COI Service will be broken up further into:

  • COI Enabling Services

  • COI Specific Services

D.4.1. Communities of Interest Enabling Services

109. Definition: COI-Enabling Services provide COI-dependant functionality required by more than one communities of interest. They are similar to Enterprise Support Services in that they provide building blocks for domain-specific service development. The distinction between the two is that Enterprise Support Services provide generic COI-independent capabilities for the entire enterprise (e.g. collaboration and information management services) and COI-Enabling Services provide those COI-dependant services that are typically shared by a larger group of COIs (e.g. operational planning and situational awareness capabilities).

110. For the purposes of this Volume, COI-Enabling Services will be broken up further into:

  • General COI-Enabling Data Formats and Standards

  • Situational Awareness Services

  • Biometric Services

D.4.1.1. General COI-Enabling Data Formats and Standards

D. Standards

111. Common standards that apply to all COI Enabling Service are listed in Table D.11. These should be adhered to if federated services are to be achieved.

Table D.11. General Data Format Standards
ID: Service/Purpose Standards Implementation Guidance
1: General definition for the Representation of Dates and Times.
  • Mandatory: ISO 8601:2004, Data elements and interchange formats - Information interchange - Representation of dates and times

Implementation of the W3C profile of ISO 8601:2004 (W3CDTF profile) is recommended.

Note: See also guidance on storage and use of time given in Table 6. IDs 1 and 4

2: General definition of letter codes for Geographical Entities
  • Undetermined .

Alpha-3 codes “XXA”, “XXB”, “XXC”, “XXX” shall not be used to avoid potential conflicts with ISO/IEC 7501-1.

3: General definition of letter codes for identifying Nationality of a person
  • Conditional: ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008, Identification cards -- Machine readable travel documents - Part 1: Machine readable passport.

When 3-letter codes are being used for identifying nationality, code extensions such as XXA, XXB, XXC, XXX as defined in ISO/IEC 7501-1 are to be used.

4: General definition of geospatial coverage areas in discovery metadata
  • Mandatory: NIMA Technical Report 8350.2 Third Edition Amendment 1+2: 23 June 2004, Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems.

  • Mandatory: ISO 19115:2003, Geographic information – Metadata.

  • Mandatory: ISO 19115:2003/Cor 1:2006.

  • Mandatory: ISO 19136:2007, Geographic Information -- Geography Markup Language (GML).

  • Recommended: STANAG 2586 NATO Geospatial Metadata Profile

ISO 19139 provides encoding guidance for ISO 19115

STANAG 2586 includes the mandatory ISO standards, but concretizes and extends it to cope with the NATO geospatial policy. It provides a conceptual schema and an XML encoding for geospatial metadata elements that extend ISO 19115

D.4.1.2. Situational Awareness Services

112. Definition: Situational Awareness (SA) Services provide the situational knowledge required by a military commander to plan operations and exercise command and control. This is the result of the processing and presentation of information comprehending the operational environment - the status and dispositions of friendly, adversary, and non-aligned actors, as well as the impacts of physical, cultural, social, political, and economic factors on military operations.

D. Standards

113. To provide federated services the standards listed in Table D.12 should be adhered to.

Table D.12. Battlespace Management Interoperability Protocols and Standards
ID: Service/Purpose Standards Implementation Guidance
1: Expressing digital geographic annotation and visualization on, two-dimensional maps and three dimensional globes
  • Mandatory: TIDE Transformational Baseline Vers. 3.0, Annex A: NATO Vector Graphics (NVG) v1.5, Allied Command Transformation Specification, December 2009.

  • Fading: NVG 1.4

  • Retired: NVG 0.3

  • Mandatory: Open Geospatial Consortium 07-147r2, Keyhole Markup Language (KML) 2.2, April 2008.

NVG shall be used as the standard Protocol and Data Format for encoding and sharing of information layers.

NVG and KML are both XML based language schemas for expressing geographic annotations.

2: Formatted military message exchange in support of:
  • SOA Platform Services/ Message-oriented Middleware Services

  • Enterprise Support Services/ Unified Communication and Collaboration Services/ Text-based Collaboration Services

  • Mandatory: STANAG 5500 Ed.7:2010, Concept of NATO Message Text Formatting System (CONFORMETS) / ADatP-03 Ed. (A) Ver. 1: December 2009.

ADatP-03(A) contains two different equivalent presentations of data: one as "classic" message or alternatively as XML-MTF instance.

A) Automated processing of XML-files in static facilities/systems is much easier and thus preferred for the exchange between national AMN extensions and the AMN Core.

B) At the tactical edge of the AMN the "classic" message format is the preferred option as this format is "leaner" and easier to transmit via tactical radio systems.

3: Message formats for exchanging information in low bandwidth environments
  • Mandatory: STANAG 7149 Ed. 5 NATO Message Catalogue APP-11(C) Change 1.

Minimum set of messages supported by the AMN Core Network (cited in the form: MTF Name (MTF Identifier, MTF Index Ref Number)):















Emerging (2015)[a]:






The following messages that are not compliant with STANAG 7149 Ed.5 could be accepted by the AMN Core Network:
  • Joint Tactical Air Strike Request (JTAR) US DD Form 1972

  • SALUTE (Size, Activity, Location, Unit/Uniform, Time, Equipment)

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

Note: the KILLBOX MESSAGE (KILLBOX, F083) is also promulgated/referred to in Theatre as a ROZ Status message [Note that compliance of the ROZ Status use of F083 with STANAG 7149 Ed 5 has to be confirmed by AMN AWG]

Notes for Emerging:

  • A011: Only for ISAF use

  • A012: Formatted message for 9-liner

  • J025: Formatted message to replace the NFFI format

  • A075: Formatted message for 10-liner

4: Exchange of digital Friendly Force Information such as positional tracking information between systems hosted on a Mission Network and mobile tactical systems
  • Mandatory: AC/322-D(2006)0066 Interim NATO Friendly Force Information (FFI) Standard for Interoperability of Force Tracking Systems (FFTS)

  • Emerging (2015): STANAG 5527 Ed. 1 / ADatP-36(A)(1), Friendly Force Tracking Systems (FFTS) Interoperability.

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 (as specified in AC/322-D(2006)0066)
5: Mediation Services: Mediate between the TDL and MN to provide weapon delivery assets with Situational Awareness on friendly forces.
  • Emerging (2016): STANAG 5528 Ed: 1/ ADatP-37 Ed. A, Services to forward Friendly Force Information to weapon delivery assets.

6: Real time automated data exchange between TDL networks.
  • Mandatory: STANAG 5518, Ed.1 - Interoperability Standard for the Joint Range Extension Applications Protocol (JREAP).; see also US MIL-STD 3011

In combination with:

  • Mandatory: STANAG 5516, Ed.4:2008 - Tactical Data Exchange (Link16)

  • Mandatory: STANAG 5511, Ed.6:Feb 28, 2006 - Tactical Data Exchange (Link 11/11B); see also US MIL-STD 6011

  • Mandatory: STANAG 5616 Ed.5:2011 - Standards for Data Forwarding between Tactical Data Systems employing Link 11/11B,Link 16, and Link 22.

Link-16 data is disseminated via JREAP and ad-hoc (i.e. NACT) protocols in ISAF. The transition to a full JREAP based dissemination needs to be implemented in close coordination with via the AMN Sec TMO.
7: Exchanging information on Incident and Event information to support information exploitation.
  • Emerging (2014): Draft EVENTEXPLOITREP XML schema.

  • Recommended: NC3A JOCWatch Web Services Specification - Operational Incident Report (OIR) – 1.2, Sep 2011

  • Recommended: U.S.PM Battle Command SIGACT Schema[b]

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[c].

Until the EVENTEXPLOITREP XML Schema definition is finalised, it is recommended to continue to use the current draft schema also known as OIR (Operational Incident Report) and the SIGACT Schema.

The SIGACT schema is used via PASS, webservices and XMPP to exchange SIGACT information at Regional Command level and below.

8: Military Symbology interoperability
  • Mandatory: STANAG 2019, Ed.5:2008, Joint SmbologyAPP-6(B)

  • Recommended: MIL-STD-2525B (w/Change 2), Common Warfighting Symbology, Mar 2007.

Note that the different standards are not fully compatible with each other and require mapping services. A translation symbol service needs to be provided on the AMN Core Network.

9: Digital exchange of semantically rich information about Battlespace Objects
  • Mandatory: MIP C2 Information Exchange data model (C2IEDM) [note: STANAG 5523 was cancelled]

  • Mandatory: MIP Data Exchange Mechanism (DEM) Block 2

  • Mandatory: AMN MIP Implementation Profile (published in Annex A to NC3A AMN MIP Workshop Final Report). RD-3188

C2IEDM Business 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.

AMN members implementing MIP have agreed to use C2IEDM (MIP-Block 2) due to lack of fielded MIP-Block 3.1 systems by the Nations and the limited information exchange requirements of AMN Mission Threads (i.e. no requirement for Operational planning)[d].

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 con- figuration control process to be considered for inclusion in the next version of the specification

The AMN Integration Core uses Ground Tracks, Event Exploit Rep, Atom, KML, NVG and initial support for JC3IEDM as the basis for its canonical model schemas. Other Schemas of immediate interest to AMN include the US Publish and Subscribe Services (PASS) Schemas POSREP, SIGACT and GRAPHICS. Altogether allow the ingestion of Track, Unit, Object Associations (ORBAT/ TASKORG), Facilities, Control Features, Airspace Control measures, Routes[e]information and the transformation into formats that the AMN Integration Core canonical model support.

[a] APP-11(C) Change 2, which is satisfying urgent operational requirements and contains new message formats designed for ISAF and similar operations, was sadly not promulgated in 2012. Their promulgation is now forecasted for 2014 with APP-11(D) (1).

[b] It should be noted that this schema is subject to release by the US Army

[c] See http://tide.act.nato.int/tidepedia/index.php?title=TP_112:_Event_Exploitation_Reports_(EVENTEXPLOITREP)

[d] It should be noted that no further development is being pursued by the MIP community for MIP-Block 2. If AMN is to progress in line with direction of FMN, implementation needs to include MIP DEM Block 2.0 to 3.1 translation. If incorporated at the AMN Integration Core, translation of the information to other standards would also be also possible.

[e] See also https://tide.act.nato.int/tidepedia/index.php?title=C2_Integration_Cononical_Modeling.

D.4.1.3. Biometric Services

114. Definition: Biometrics services record measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) and behavioural characteristics of personnel for use by automated recognition systems. Biometric enabled systems typically provide distinct services for Data Collection and for Matching/Identification.

D. Standards

115. To provide federated services the standards listed in Table D.13 should be adhered to. NATO is currently in the process of standardizing the exchange of biometric data under STANAG 4715 Ed 1 Biometrics Data, Interchange, Watchlisting and Reporting 3. Oct 2013, covering AEDP-15 NATO Biometrics Data, Interchange, Watchlisting and Reporting, Ed A Vers 1, October 2013. Currently three out of 11 AMN TCNs (incl. the largest provider of biometric data for the operation), have ratified STANAG 4715 Ed 1 as “Ratifying Implementing”.

Table D.13. Biometric Data and System Interoperability Protocols and Standards
ID: Service/Purpose Standards Implementation Guidance
1: Interchange of Fingerprint (Type 4 and 14) data
  • ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000

  • ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2007 Part 1

  • EBTS 1.2 (references ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000)

  • FBI EBTS v8.0/v8.1 (references ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2007)

  • DOD EBTS 2.0

  • ISO/IEC 19794-2:2005, part 2

Use of the ISO standard over national standards is preferred.
2: Type 10 Facial
  • EFTS v7.0, EFTS v7.1

  • FBI EBTS v8.0/v8.1

  • ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000, 1-2007 Part 1

  • EBTS 1.2 (references EFTS v7.0)

  • DOD EBTS v2.0

  • ISO/IEC 19794-5 w/Amd1:2007, part 5

Use of the ISO standard over national standards is preferred.
3: Type 16 Iris
  • ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000, 1-2007 Part 1

  • EBTS 1.2

  • ISO/IEC 19794-6

Use of the ISO standard over national standards is preferred.
4: Type 17 Iris
  • ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2007 Part 1

  • FBI EBTS v8.0/v8.1 (ref ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2007)

  • DOD EBTS v2.0

  • ISO/IEC 19794-6

Use of the ISO standard over national standards is preferred.

D.4.2. Communities of Interest Specific Services

116. Definition: Community of Interest (COI)-Specific Services provide specific functionality as required by particular C3 user communities in support of NATO operations, exercises and routine activities. These COI-Specific Services were previously also referred to as "functional services" or "functional area services".

117. For the purposes of this Volume and the AMN, Standards and Implementation Instructions are currently only required for:

  • Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JISR or Joint ISR) Community of Interest (COI) Services.

D.4.2.1. JISR COI Services

118. Definition: Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JISR or Joint ISR) Community of Interest (COI) Services provide unique computing and information services for intelligence support to operations. Intelligence Support is the set of military activities that are undertaken to receive commander's direction, proactively collect information, analyze it, produce useful predictive intelligence and disseminate it in a timely manner to those who need to know.

D. Standards

119. The NATO Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Interoperability Architecture (NIIA) [AEDP-2, Ed.1:2005] provides the basis for the technical aspects of an architecture that provides interoperability between NATO nations' ISR systems. AEDP-2 provides the technical and management guidance for implementing the NIIA in ISR systems. These common standards are listed in Table D.14. These should be adhered to if federated services are to be achieved.

Table D.14. JISR Interoperability Protocols and Standards
ID: Service/Purpose Standards Implementation Guidance
1: Storing and exchanging of images and associated data
  • Mandatory: STANAG 4545, Ed. Amendment 1:2000, NATO Secondary Imagery Format (NSIF)

AEDP-4, Ed. 1, NATO Secondary Imagery Format Implementation Guide, 15 Jun 07, NU.
2: Providing a standard software interface for searching and retrieving for ISR products.
  • Mandatory: STANAG 4559, Ed. 3:2010 (starting Dec 2011). NATO Standard ISR Library Interface (NSILI).

  • Fading: STANAG 4559, Ed. 2:2007 (beginning July 2011)

AEDP-5, Ed. 1, NATO Standard Imagery Library Interface Implementation Guide, TBS, NU

Note: STANAG 4559, Ed.2 and Ed.3 are NOT compatible with each other (No backwards compatibility). The NATO provided CSD on the AMN Core network only implements Ed.3:2010).

3: Exchange of ground moving target indicator radar data
  • Mandatory: STANAG 4607, Ed. 2:2007 NATO Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) Format.

  • Emerging: STANAG 4607, Ed.3:2010.

AEDP-7, Ed. 1, NATO Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) Format Implementation Guide, TBS, NU
4: Provision of common methods for exchanging of Motion Imagery (MI)across systems
  • Mandatory: STANAG 4609, Ed. 2:2007 NATO Digital Motion Imagery Standard.

  • Emerging: STANAG 4609, Ed. 3:2009.

AEDP-8, Ed. 2, Implementation Guide For STANAG 4609NDMI , June 2007, NU

5: Exchange of unstructured data (documents, jpeg imagery)
  • Recommended: IPIWIG V4 Metadata Specification: 2009, Intelligence Projects Integration Working Group (IPIWG), Definition of metadata for unstructured Intelligence.

6: Providing a standard software interface for ex changing information about sensor planning, including information about capabilities of sensors, tasking of a sensors and status of sensor-planning requests.
  • Emerging: OGC 09-000: OGC Sensor Planning Service Implementation Standard v2.0, March 2011.

For the AMN, Sensor Planning Service implementations shall adhere to the SOAP binding as defined in OGC 09-000.