[LEAPSECS] ISO Influence
dfinkleman at agi.com
Sat Dec 18 12:49:43 EST 2010
My stated objective is to try to effect more inclusive and exhaustive consensus about UTC, not to influence the outcome personally. Whichever way this goes, the outcome should be codified and guidance for either accommodating the current scheme or adapting to the new one is required.
Naïve at the outset (maybe still), I became involved in ISO as a representative of the space community believing that ISO would facilitate consensus among stakeholders and arrive at a widely acceptable solution. So far this has happened most of the time in my working group. The latest accomplishment is the data and metadata content as well as format for exchanging orbit data (Orbit Data Message). I did influence including coordinate systems, reference frames, and time scales in the metadata.
The approach suggested in our AAS paper and subsequent editorials and point papers is that ITU, ISO, BIPM, and other stakeholder organizations do this together. There is precedent, since JTCG 1 was formed to accomplish this for metrology. BIPM chairs JTCG1.
I am making progress.
To address Poul-Hennig's comments about selling standards, CCSDS and AIAA standards are free. If anyone from ISO is on this thread, ignore what I am about to write! We worked around ISO charges by making the Orbit Data Message standard a joint CCSDS/AIAA/ISO document. It is free from CCSDS and AIAA.
It is important that both ISO and ITU headquarters organizations have expenses. ITU has UN funding. ISO has voluntary contributions and document sales. The headquarters organizations only administer the processes and publication. They do not participate in the outcomes or decide what the work items should be. The decision to pursue a work area resides in the Technical Committees and Working Groups, which are pro-bono. ISO HQ itself cannot initiate, encourage, or participate in authorizing standards work.
For everyone to criticize, I have almost convinced the USAF to issue a position statement to OSD and the State Department pleading that UTC not change from the current paradigm. The rationale is that UTC is called out as the mandatory service for event time tagging and synchronization. As such, contractors must implement UTC in every Air Force system. If UTC changes, there will be consequences throughout current and emerging systems. Any change would mandate extensive assessments and mitigation. No change being the best alternative for them is a no-brainer.
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Phone: 719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780
Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and outreach events at www.CenterForSpace.com.
More information about the LEAPSECS