Examples, Templates and Artifacts
Governance Templates

Executive Steering Committee Charter Template

 

Information Sharing Agreement Checklist

 

Data Access Request Process_Questionnaire

 

External Information Sharing_MOA_Template


Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrices

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Data Inputs
4-1

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Datasets
c2

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Functionality
5-4

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Functionality of Applications and Services
d2 d2 part 2

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Infrastructure
6-1

 

Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix: Technology
e2 e2 part 2
e2 part 3


Identity, Credential, And Access Management (ICAM) Landscape

ICAMLandscape


Stakeholder Performance Guides

 

GOVERNANCE

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

GOVERNANCE

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair the Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) body.

• Signatory to establish Investment Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or dissemination of data and/or services.

• Work with other Executives to frame Charter goals/objectives and commitment to level-of- effort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with CIO/CFO representation and consider policy to ensure participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General Council process and review and maintain repository of Agreements.

• Signatory with defined responsibility and stated measurable results (e.g., ELAs with % cost reduction, shared services with defined Steward, etc.).

• Promotes interoperability, reduces redundant investments, and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition and/or document need for establishing an Enterprise License Agreement.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal Department/Agency investment PMs for recommendations to Execs for strategic and tactical objectives.

• Staff and perform Working Group tasks as defined within the ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures and target end-state (To-Be) environment.

• Ensure geospatial (sub-system at a minimum) is identified within the CPIC submission process.

• PMs identify and prioritize capability gaps and planned investments to determine To-Be end-state vs. As-Is environment and prepared business plan and value proposition for Execs approval.

• Recommend Working Group priority, short-term/high-value tasks, and early delivery results to demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working Group roles/responsibilities and prepare a work plan with Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Within the annual CPIC submission (e.g., 53/300) process, ensure geospatial capability is identified so that search and identification across system investments can be performed.

• Early adoption/visibility to strengthen long-term commitment from Executive Leadership.

• Working Group member awareness of multiple investments across enterprise promotes coordination resulting in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable and quantifiable results demonstrating value of collaboration.

• Facilitates the search and identification of geospatial investments (especially for smaller systems) across the entire enterprise to foster participation within the Executive Steering Committee and technical solution teams.

Solution Architect

• SME and reach back for Working Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and perform capability gap analysis for As-Is and To-Be environments.

• Develop technical approach for work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation across investments for desired To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible technical review, adoption and acceptance.

 

 

BUSINESS

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

BUSINESS

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Establish and/or Co-Chair to Chartered governance (ESC/IPT) body.

• Signatory to establish Investment Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) framework.

• Signatory to ISAs for access or dissemination of data and/or services.

• Work with other Executives to frame Charter goals/objectives and commitment to level-of- effort support/involvement.

• Establish review board with CIO/CFO representation and consider policy to ensure participation and commitment.

• Establish or follow General Council process and review and maintain repository of Agreements.

• Signatory with defined responsibility and stated measurable results (e.g., ELAs with % cost reduction, shared services with defined Steward, etc.).

• Promotes interoperability, reduces redundant investments, and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for data acquisition and/or document need for establishing an Enterprise License Agreement.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal Department/Agency investment PMs for recommendations to Execs for strategic and tactical objectives.

• Staff and perform Working Group tasks as defined within the ESC/IPT Charter.

• Develop performance measures and target end-state (To-Be) environment.

• PMs identify and prioritize capability gaps and planned investments to determine To-Be end-state vs. As-Is environment and prepared business plan and value proposition for Execs approval.

• Recommend Working Group priority, short-term/high-value tasks and deliver early results to demonstrate benefits.

• Within Charter define Working Group roles/responsibilities and prepare a work plan with Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M).

• Early adoption/visibility to strengthen long-term commitment from Executive Leadership.

• Working Group member awareness of multiple investments across enterprise promotes coordination resulting in leveraged investments.

• Results oriented for measurable and quantifiable results demonstrating value of collaboration.

Solution Architect

• SME and reach back for Working Group participation.

• Validate technical requirements for work plan.

• Develop baseline assessment and perform capability gap analysis for As-Is and To-Be environments.

• Develop technical approach for work plan tasks and POA&M.

• Technical vetting and validation across investments for desired To-Be end-state environment.

• Ensure broadest possible technical review, adoption, and acceptance.

 

 

DATA

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

DATA

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Authorize a Business Needs Analysis to identify geospatial data requirements using the Baseline Assessment Matrix: Data.

• Agreed upon data authorized source to reduce redundancy and determine Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) opportunity with data provider/vendor.

• Require any/all funded data creation or enhancement initiatives (e.g., contract award, cost-share, grant, etc.) include metadata standard compliance.

• Work with other Executives to acknowledge the need to reduce data costs by leveraging investment and performing the Baseline Assessment based upon mission/business needs.

• Based upon business/mission need during Data Matrix assessment, may require Service Level Agreement and cost share for availability and Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) with vendor/provider.

• Working with Exec Leadership approach Chief Procurement Officer to require contract language for the inclusion for all financial obligations.

• Signatory with defined responsibility and stated measurable results (e.g., IT Asset Inventory for OMB Open Data Policy reporting and a quantifiable data resource inventory).

• The inventory would facilitate the identification of desired datasets; identifies redundant data assets for decommissioning; identifies opportunities to reuse or extend a data asset rather than creating a new one; and the opportunity to reduce redundancy costs based upon the establishment of enterprise licensing agreements and allows for cost share for economies of scale.

• Provides a way to uniformly describe data, thereby supporting its discovery and sharing resulting in cost avoidance. Compliance with government Open Data Policy.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s geo investment PMs for completion of Data Matrix and document business/mission functional requirements that drive data needs.

• Determine which dataset will be used enterprise-wide based upon data content, currency, and availability.

• Work with PMs across enterprise to perform review of internally produced data includes metadata with a common taxonomy and cataloged for discovery.

• Post datasets in open standards to appropriate catalogs for discovery.

• PMs prepare Data Matrix and schedule survey and follow-on interviews to clarify Data findings with business owners to understand functional needs.

• Detailed assessment of datasets and how they meet the mission/business functional requirements. May require ELA with broader use terms and additional attributes requiring cost-share.

• Review procurement vehicles to ensure metadata standard compliance language. Develop a common taxonomy for cataloging the metadata enhanced data resources.

• Ensure enterprise data are exposed or “harvestable” to appropriate web catalog services.

• Awareness and understanding of enterprise data requirements and business/mission owner functional needs that drive data.

• Reduced contracting for vendor provided data, ELA discounts for volume-based pricing, data Steward responsibility as opposed to multiple posting/storage of datasets.

• Ability to identify, search, discover and share datasets across the enterprise.

• Facilitates the search and identification of geospatial data sharing. Compliance with government Open Data Policy.

Solution Architect

• Data Assessment Matrix design and development.

• Ensure data are cataloged and available in open standards and posted to web catalog service.

• Assist the data matrix interview with mission/business owner to determine functional requirements that drive data and application needs.

• Develop technical approach for ensuring enterprise data resources are available, vetted, and provided in compliance with open data requirements.

• Technical vetting and validation across investments for desired To-Be end-state environment. Understand functional requirements to optimize application development and data resource acquisition.

• Facilitates the search and identification of geospatial data sharing. Compliance with government Open Data Policy.

 

 

APPLICATIONS/SERVICES

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

APPLICATIONS/SERVICES

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Authorize the Application and Service inventory using the Baseline Assessment and catalog App/Svc capabilities across the enterprise using a common taxonomy.

• As part of the Investment Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) framework, require all new applications and services be compared against the App/Svc Catalog to determine shared first requirement.

• Apply the Shared Services Implementation Step-wise Process to geospatial investment.

• Work with other Executives to acknowledge the need to reduce data costs by leveraging investment and performing the Baseline Assessment based upon mission/business needs.

• Establish review board with CIO/CFO representation and consider policy to ensure participation and commitment.

• During annual budget review/planning cycle or with proposed new investments review against process.

• Signatory with defined responsibility and stated measurable results (e.g., IT Asset Inventory for OMB Open Data Policy reporting and a quantifiable App/Svc resource inventory).

• Promotes interoperability, reduces redundant investments, and allows for cost share.

• Reduce cost for App/Svc development/acquisition alignment to Share-First policy.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal Department/Agency investment PMs to establish Geospatial Taxonomy Working Group and Geospatial App/Svc Catalog.

• Staff and perform inventory and of existing/proposed App/Svc investment.

• Staff and perform Shared Services Implementation Step- wise Process to assess geospatial investments.

• Initiate the Taxonomy development and perform App/Svc inventory for documenting App/Svc and creating a catalog.

• Perform Baseline Assessment: Apps/Svcs across enterprise and populate catalog.

• Develop repetitive process for evaluating investment to share services.

• Shared awareness of investment and value of geospatial capabilities across the organization. Basis for shared service capabilities.

• Provides baseline for shared service investment and leveraged capability

• Catalog meets Share First policy and forms basis for reduced investment.

Solution Architect

• SME and reach back for Taxonomy Working Group participation.

• Perform technical evaluation of App/Svc investments to determine commonality and alignment.

• Develop baseline assessment and perform inventory of App/Svcs.

• Technical review of services for alignment to TRM and Infrastructure compatibility (Geospatial Baseline Assessment Matrix).

• Cross enterprise collaboration for technical exchange and comparison.

• Ensure broadest possible technical review, adoption and acceptance.

 

 

INFRASTRUCTURE

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

INFRASTRUCTURE

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Executive Steering Committee authorization and commitment to perform Baseline Assessment Matrix: Infrastructure and Technology.

• Approve/disapprove a proposed IT solution depending upon its compliance with Enterprise Architecture for inclusion within CPIC process.

• Ensure Cloud Option assessment is performed as part of a proposed IT solution.

• Task Program Managers responsible for geospatial system oversight to perform develop and execute the Baseline Assessment.

• Ensure that the infrastructure/technology Baseline Matrix capabilities are aligned to EA and proposed new infrastructure/technology aligns to and not duplicative of existing capabilities.

• Task Program Manger to apply cloud process review as option for IT solution.

• Provides input for CPIC (53/300) and reporting to OMB as well as establishes the enterprise baseline of the As-Is geospatial investments across the organization.

• Promotes interoperability, reduces redundant investments, and allows for cost share.

• Complies with Cloud First policy and provides economies for implementation.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across organization’s geospatial investments to ensure committed participation in Baseline Assessment.

• Identify opportunities for shared infrastructure and/or technology based upon Baseline Assessment Matrix comparison.

• Review report of finding for cloud options for IT solution and make recommendations to Executive Leadership.

• PMs identify and prioritize capability gaps and planned investments aligned to Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and prepare recommendations and/or options for Execs approval.

• Based upon gap analysis, identify candidate investments to leverage, eliminate or new develop based upon ORD priorities.

• Coordinate Cloud assessment process evaluation for IT solution architecture.

• Cross organization agreement for prioritized geospatial system development priorities and leveraged resource commitment.

• Reduce duplicative IT footprint and identify opportunity to leverage or reprioritize investments.

• Complies with Cloud First policy and provides economies for implementation.

Solution Architect

• Develop the Infrastructure Assessment Matrix from across the entire organization’s geospatial investments.

• Vet “new” technology insertions to EA and Technical Reference Model to ensure alignment with organization’s To-Be environment.

• Prepare report of finding for cloud options for IT solution.

• Work with other organization SAs to ensure a complete baseline assessment and perform capability gap analysis for As-Is and To-Be environments.

• Determine “optimal” solution if duplicative investments and ensure alignment to EA for “new” technology.

• Perform Cloud assessment process evaluation for IT solution architecture.

• Ensure broadest possible technical review, adoption and acceptance.

• Technical vetting and validation across investments for desired To-Be end-state environment and alignment to EA target ensures compatibility and reduces IT footprint cost.

• Provides awareness of architecture investment and solution options.

 

 

SECURITY

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

SECURITY

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Identify appropriate access policy for system data necessary to ensure responsible information sharing according to mission need.

• Ensure risk management function for the organization is established and applies repeatable, consistent evaluation criterion.

• Embrace the use of reusable, shared services for IdAM and security capabilities within the agency, and ensure Enterprise Architecture provides for adoption of federal shared services, particularly IdAM and security services, as they become available.

• Empower organizational enterprise architect to direct the inclusion of relevant IdAM and security standards in organizational IT acquisition actions by holding systems accountable for EA compliance.

• Understand Policy Requirements:

◦ Mission need for system information security

◦ Business processes that incorporate the system information

◦ Severity of risk of unauthorized disclosure

• Risk management function should be staffed sufficiently and empowered to reconcile interests of stakeholders. Clear risk management criteria formed with input from all relevant stakeholders (security, privacy, CRCL, mission owners).

• Designate organizational Executive Agents responsible for implementing IdAM and Security EA and policy. Responsible for:

◦ Organization. EAs represent organization at relevant intergovernmental committees, governance bodies, and WGs.

◦ Develop acquisition strategy that requires transition of solutions to repeatable shared services.

• EA functions include:

◦ Organizational process for approval of systems to ensure EA for IdAM and Security (services and standards). If compliance not currently feasible, POA&Ms to be required.

◦ Engage organizational acquisitions and procurement functions to ensure contractual commitments and acquisitions are consistent with IdAM and Security EA and implementation plans.

◦ Recommend restriction of funding of noncompliant systems.

• A clear statement of information sharing policy can be vetted through the relevant stakeholders and then digitally implemented within mission systems to efficiently execute the mission.

• Provides consistent feedback that can be incorporated for system design and avoids delays from inability to plan due to ambiguous guidance or interference from dissatisfied stakeholders.

• Assist in complying with Federal policy guidance and drives cost efficiencies through shared, common services.

• Ensures that system planning incorporates appropriate guidance from an early stage to avoid delays or wasted expenditures resulting from noncompliant system architecture.

• Incorporating EA function into organizational approval process provides enforcement mechanism for EA compliance at an early stage, when noncompliance can be more easily mitigated.

Program Manager

• Ensure access policy requirements for the system information are included in system acquisition, tech refresh actions, and system engineering lifecycle.

• Ensure compliance/evaluation/ approval of the system in accordance with the organizational risk management framework.

• Ensure requirements for relevant IdAM requirements are included in procurement language.

• Identify access policy rules that have been enumerated for information contained in the system.

• Program Manager actively engages with relevant governance bodies from system planning phase onward (see Table 7-1).

◦ Give EA organization visibility into each phase of system lifecycle.

◦ EA communicates emerging requirements to Program Managers.

• Draft and include approved guidance with system acquisition, tech refresh actions, and system engineering lifecycle documentation.

• Assist in complying with Federal policy guidance and drives cost efficiencies through shared, common services.

• Assists in CPIC reporting requirements and drives early security awareness and compliance resulting in cost savings.

• Assists in CPIC reporting requirements and drives early security awareness and compliance resulting in cost savings.

Solution Architect

• Ensure solution roadmap aligns with FICAM Roadmap.

• Ensure solution meets requirements of organizational risk management framework.

• Implement solution that is compliant with EA model for IdAM and security as well as organizational FICAM implementation plans.

• Implement solution with sufficient interfaces to take advantage of enterprise IdAM and security services.

• Detail functionality for currently available capabilities and provide POA&Ms demonstrating alignment for future capabilities.

• Clear system with risk management function during planning stage. If system is operational, coordinate roadmap to satisfy RM function.

• Solution is described in terms of functional and technical requirements, which are mapped to service types and components of the relevant EA model.

• Interfaces are defined sufficiently to show interoperability of system with repeatable shared services and standards.

• Ensures flexibility and adaptability of systems to incorporate upcoming capabilities.

• Expedites development by coordinating risk management requirements into system planning and design phase rather than waiting for approval after build is complete.

• Ensures that solutions are engineered or selected to meet all relevant requirements from the planning and design phase.

• Ensures that the solution is designed and sufficiently technically implemented to provide flexibility to interoperate with emerging IdAM and security capabilities without the need for extensive re-engineering.

 

 

STANDARDS

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

STANDARDS

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Develop and adopt Standards Policy within and across the Geospatial Executive Steering Committee and your Department or Agency.

• Ensure all geospatial procurements/awards have the appropriate Standards Compliance Section included in the contract language.

• Standards resourcing for subject matter expertise (SME) and SDO involvement.

• Working with Executive Leadership across geospatial investments, the Office of the Chief Information Officer; Financial Management Office; and Grants Office, agree upon and include Standards-based acquisition language for procurements and awards.

• Review procurement action prior to sign-off and the assign Program Manager the responsibility to include the necessary language in the procurement/award action.

• Budget for a staffing position (e.g., full or part time) to perform standards guidance. Position would participate on and provide into to SDOs and cross organization geospatial investments.

• Ensure contract continuity and compliance for consistent geospatial investments. Enforces vendor neutrality and promotes competition for industry standards adoption. Drives interoperability across investments.

• Ensures procurement/award consistency and compliance.

• Provides awareness and understanding of standards requirements, benefits and advancement in geospatial standards development and adoption.

Program Manager

• Coordinate across other internal Department and Agency investment PMs for identification and agreement on content for Standards Policy development.

• Prepare “boiler plate” standards-based procurement language for inclusion need contracts/awards.

• Determine resourcing requirements and availability for geospatial standards capability development for:

◦ Subject Matter Expert

◦ SDO participation

• Draft Standards Policy for procurement and grants guidance. Work with and vet for completeness and currency across organization and review SDO listings.

• Work with OCIO, OFM, and Grants Offices to determine process for standards-based procurement / grant language inclusion within policy guidance and contract vehicles.

• Prepare Position Description for Geospatial Standards SME as a core competency within job category (e.g., GS-2210: Information Technology Management Series). Participate on and/or contribute to geospatial SDO initiatives.

• Provides awareness and understanding of baseline and current standards requirements. Allows for a definition of “Value Proposition” of standards- based interoperability.

• Policy-based guidance for government and industry understanding and compliance.

• Increase internal capacity for geospatial standards understanding and compliance.

Solution Architect

• Document current standards in use within/across organization geospatial investments.

• Contribute to development of baseline standards for inclusion into Policy Guidance.

• Contribute to identification of SME resource for geospatial standards. Ensure awareness of geospatial standards for inclusion in system procurement and development.

• Coordinate with SAs across organization’s geospatial investments to identify and document geospatial standards usage.

• Develop baseline of key geospatial standards derived from Federal and SDO current and emerging standards documentation.

• Provide input for Position Description for Geospatial Standards SME. Participate on SDOs for awareness of geospatial standards development and update.

• Technical vetting and validation across investments for As-Is standards usage.

• Ensure broadest possible technical review and allows identification of gaps and deficiencies for enhancement.

• Strengthen breadth of geospatial standards awareness across organization’s geospatial investments.

 

 

PERFORMANCE

 

STAKEHOLDER PERFORMANCE GUIDE

PERFORMANCE

Role

Responsibility

Approach

Benefit

Executive Leadership

• Define mission context for geospatial investments across the enterprise.

• Ensure Performance metrics and indicators are included in all CPIC (OMB 300/53) geospatial investments.

• Provide overall mission context and expected contribution of geospatial to/within programs to Program Managers, and align program success to improved performance of business functions.

• Using Performance indicators for each reference model (e.g., Business, Data, Applications/Services, Infrastructure, Security, and Performance) prepare matrix for ESC review and adoption and monitoring.

• Creates quantifiable measures and expected outcomes (mission and resource impact) of a geospatial investment.

• Ensures OMB reporting compliance and senior leadership commitment to managed/measured success of investment.

Program Manager

• Define measures of effectiveness and success criteria for geospatial investments under oversight.

• ESC to oversee cost, schedule, and scope of geospatial investments across enterprise.

• Provide clear guidance to Solution Architects for requirements and dependencies of required solutions.

• Communicate with Executive Leadership and stakeholder community (mission holders) to foster an understanding of the value of current efforts with the overall mission success.

• Creates clarity as to the value of programs being managed to overall mission effectiveness.

• Enables easier management through a better understanding of how measures of effectiveness translate into system requirements and benefits.

Solution Architect

• Derive functional and technical requirements and associated quantifiable performance success measures given target objective.

• Oversee technical implementation and schedule and provide status to leadership and recommended course corrections as needed.

• Analyze program requirements and measures of effectiveness and identify solution elements that will enable the program to meet success criteria.

• Create a clear understanding of how the project scope, schedule, and budget is progressing and provides line-of-sight with respect to the overall program and enterprise requirements.

• Demonstrable solution effectiveness, tied directly to executive-level interests which enables an end-to-end picture of how delivered solutions fit into an enterprise-level mission

• Enables clear communication with the Project Managers and Executive Leadership regarding schedule and scope of system delivery.


List Of GIRA Acronyms
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ARM Application Reference Model
ASRG Architecture and Standards Review Group
BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance
BOM Bill of Materials
BRM Business Reference Model
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CIO Chief Information Office
COP Common Operating Picture
CPIC Capital Planning Investment Control
CPM Collaborative Planning Methodology
CPS Coverage Portrayal Service
CRCL Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
CRM Consolidated Reference Model
CSW Catalog Service for the Web
CS-W Catalog Services
CTS Coordinate Transformation Services
DDMS Defense Discoverable Metadata Specification
DGI Digital Geospatial Information
DGIWG Defense Geospatial Information Working Group
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DISR Standards Registry
DNI Director of National Intelligence
DoD Department of Defense
DPS Department of Public Safety
DRM Data Reference Model’s
EA Enterprise Architecture
EDI Electronic Data Interchange
ELA Enterprise License Agreement
EOSE Extended Open Systems Environment
ER2 (Enterprise Registry and Repository
ERO emergency response official
ESC Executive Steering Committee
ESF Emergency Support Functions
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FE Filter Encoding Specification
FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture
FEAF Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
FICAM Federal Identify and Access Management
FISM Federal Information Security Management Act
FRAC First Responder Authentication Credential
FSAM Federal Segment Architecture Methodology
GAI Geospatial Applications and Interoperability
GAO Government Accountability Office
GeoCONOPS Geospatial Concept Of Operations
GEOINT Geospatial Intelligence
GFIPM Global Federated Identity and Privilege Management
GIF Graphics Interchange Format
GIOT Geospatial Interagency Oversight Team
GIRA Geospatial Interoperability Reference Architecture
GIRM Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model
GIS geographic information system
GMA Geospatial Maturity Assessment
GSDI Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
GWG Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group
HTTP Hyper Text Transport Protocol
IAA Identity, Access, and Authorization
IAA Interagency Agreement
IAAF Identity and Authorization Attributes Federation
IC Intelligence Community
IATAD Information Assurance and Trusted Access Division
ICAM Identity, Credential, and Access Management
IdAM Identity and Access Management
IHO International Hydrographic Organization
IGCE Independent Government Cost Estimate
I2F Information Interoperability Framework
INCITS International Committee for Information Technology Standards
IPT Integrated Product/Project Team
IRM Infrastructure Reference Model
ISA Information Sharing Agreement
ISAA Information Sharing and Access Agreement
ISE Information Sharing Environment
ISE-G Information Sharing Environment Guidance
ISO International Standards Organization
IT Information Technology
ITSC Information Technology Standards Committee
ITAR Investment Technology Acquisition Review
JWICS Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System
KPI key performance indicators
MFG Metadata Focus Group
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NCGIS National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NIEM National Information Exchange Model
NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure
NFDD NSG Feature Data Dictionary
NEC NSG Entity Catalog
NIEF National Identity Exchange Federation
NRF National Response Framework
NSG National System for Geospatial-Intelligence
NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council
NSTIC National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORD Operational Requirements Document
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
OGP Oil and Gas Producer
OLS OGC Location Services
ORM OGC Reference Model
OSGeo Open Source Geospatial Foundation
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PM Program Manager
PNG Portable Network Graphics
POC Point of Contact
POA&M Plan Of Action And Milestones
PPD-8 Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness
PM-ISE Program Manager-Information Sharing Environment
PWS Performance Work Statement
RAMONA Random Access Metadata For Online Nationwide Assessments
ROI Return on Investment
RFP Request for Proposal
SA Solution Architect
SCS Sensor Collection Service
SFAE Secret Fabric Attribute Exchange
SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure
SDO Standards Development Organization
SLA Service Level Agreement
SICAM State Identity Credential and Access Management
SIPRNet Secret Internet Protocol Router Network
SIE Single Information Environment
SME subject matter expertise
SDLC System Development Life Cycle
SLD Styled Layer Descriptor
SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol
SOO Statement of Objectives
SOW Statement of Work
SLT state, local, and Tribal
SWG Standards Working Group
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TFS TRUST FRAMEWORK SOLUTIONS
TRM Technical Reference Model
TIFF Tagged Image File Format
TS Top Secret
UDOP User Defined Operating Picture
UN-GGIM United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management
URISA Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
URA User Requirements Analysis
WCS Web Coverage Service
WSDL Web Service Definition Language
WFS Web Features Service
WMS Web Map Service
WMC Web Map Context
XML eXtensible Markup Language
XACML XML Access Control Markup Language

 


GIRA References

1. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, February 8, 2011.

2. White House National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding, December 2012.

3. Australian Information Interoperability Framework, 2006.

4. U.S. Code, Title 44: Public Printing and Documents (2011) U.S.C. Title 44, Chap. 36, § 3601.

5. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries (New York, NY: 1990).

6. The PM-ISE was established under the authorities of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as ammended.

7. Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment Information Interoperability Framework (I2F): National Security Through Responsible Information Sharing, Version 0.5, March, 2014, available at http://ise.gov/ise-information-interoperability-framework

8. This document’s use of the term “Departments and Agencies” includes Departments, Agencies, Commissions, Bureaus, and Boards and other types of organizations in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government.

9. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies:Guidelines and Requirements in Support of the Information Sharing Environment (White House: Washington, DC, 2005), Section 1, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-10.html

10. A Process for Evaluating Geographic Information Systems. USGS Open File Report, 1988. 88-105, 1998, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1988/0105/report.pdf

11. A Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model (GIRM), Version 1.1, December 2003.

12. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

13. A Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010.

14. SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDIWiki, last modified June 5, 2014.

15. Department of Homeland Security, Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 5.0, June 5, 2013.

16. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf

17. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

18. Office of Management and Budget, Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 23, 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government-

strategy.pdf

19. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

20. Federal CIO Council, Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013, available at (https://cio.gov/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf ).

21. Holistic Engineering Education, Systems Integration, Chapter 5, The MITRE Corporation, February 23, 2011.

22. Geospatial Profile, Version 1.1, January 27, 2006. Architecture and Infrastructure Committee, Federal Chief Information Officers Council and Federal Geographic Data Committee. (no longer available)

23. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100916

24. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steering%20committee

25. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/steering-committee.html

26. Rules of the Road: A Guide for Leading Successful Integrated Product Teams, Revision 1, October 1999. Department of Defense.

27. https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=24675

28. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Integrated_Project_Team#cite_note-0

29.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawctsd/Resources/Library/Acqguide/IPT%20Rules%20of%20the%20Road.htm

30.

http://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/integrated-project-team-ipt-startup-guide

31. Ensuring IT Investments Deliver Their Promised Value, The Importance of Enterprise Governance, January, 2011, Office of the Chief Information Officer, DHS.

32. Department of Homeland Security, Systems Engineering and Acquisition, Best Practices: A Portal Companion, Version 1.0, September 2012. Developed by the Home Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute.

33. Department of Homeland Security, Systems Engineering and Acquisition, Best Practices: A Portal Companion, Version 1.0, September 2012. Developed by the Home Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute.

34. Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, January 23, 2013.

35. Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, January 23, 2013.

36. Ibid.

37. Department of Homeland Security, Information Technology Acquisition Review (ITAR) Quick Essentials Guide, Version 3.0, January 23, 2013.

38. Office of Management and Budget, Guidance on Exhibits 53 and 300 – Information Technology and E-Government, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy14_guidance_on_exhibits_53_and_300.pdf

39. OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset (May 9, 2013), available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

40. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a130notice

41. Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013. Federal Chief Information Officers Council, available at

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf

42. Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, October 2010.

43. Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, October 2010.

44. Ibid.

45. IT Governance Institute.

46. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012.

47. The Collaborative Planning Methodology, June 2012, Office of Management and Budget.

48. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009. Available at

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf/view

49. Ibid.

50. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

51. Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

52.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/egov/a-3-2-services.html

53. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/

54. DoD 8320.02-G, Guidance for Implementing Net-Centric Data Sharing, April 2006, available at http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/documents/832002g.pdf

55. Department of Homeland Security, Geospatial Concept of Operation (GeoCONOPS), available at https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home

56. Ibid.

57. OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset (May 9, 2013), available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

58. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

59. Office of Management and Budget, A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach


_to_federal_ea.pdf

60. Ibid.

61. Office of Management and Budget, Consolidated Reference Model, Version 2.3, October 2007, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_CRM_v23_


Final_Oct_2007_Revised.pdf.

62. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

63. http://project-open-data.github.io/schema/

64. International Standards Organization, ISO 19115:2003 Geographic Information – Metadata, available at

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020

65. Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG), DGIWG Metadata Vision – 906, September 30, 2013, available at

https://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm

66. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

67. OMB Memorandum M-1 0-06, Open Government Directive, December 8, 2009, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf

68. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

69. OMB Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset, May 9, 2013, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

70. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013. Appendix C: Data Reference Model.

71. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

72. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

73. http://metadata.ces.mil/dse/irs/DDMS/

74. OMB Memorandum M-1 0-06, Open Government Directive, December 8, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive

75. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 29, 2013.

76. Office of Management and Budget, Consolidated Reference Model, Version 2.3, October 2007.

77. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009, available at https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

78. National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). https://www.niem.gov/Pages/default.aspx

79. http://www.idmanagement.gov/identity-credential-access-management

80. National Strategy For Information Sharing and Safeguarding, December 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/2012/12/19/national-strategy-information-sharing-and-safeguarding

81. Geospatial Platform. https://www.geoplatform.gov/about/

82. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Steering Committee meeting minutes, April 19, 2012.

http://www.fgdc.gov/participation/steering-committee/meeting-minutes/april-2012/meeting-minutes-public-sc-20120419.pdf

83. Data.gov. https://www.data.gov/

84. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/cat

85. OMB Memorandum M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, November 10, 2010, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-03.pdf

86. Geospatial Platform. Available at https://www.geoplatform.gov

87. Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 6.0, June 2014, available at https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home

88. https://www.geoplatform.gov/geoconops-home

89. National State Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), available at http://www.gisinventory.net/

90. Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

91. Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

92. Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012.

93. Much of the information in this section is taken directly from the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, V2.0; the Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy; and the Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide.

94. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, January 13, 2013.

95. Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Version 2.0, March 06, 2009.

96. Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council. Available at

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

97. Service types taken from the Enterprise Architecture Segment Report (Draft Interim Instruction Guide for Quarter 4 FY2009). Service components taken from the Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 2.0.

98. Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council.

99. Open Geospatial Consortium. http://www.opengeospatial.org/

100. OpenGIS Abstract Specification, Topic 12 “System Architecture,” OpenGIS Consortium, Version 4.2, October 2001. Available at http://www.opengis.org/techno/abstract.htm Volume 12 is equivalent to ISO/DIS 19119, Geographic information – Services (2002). ISO 19119:2016 was published on 2016-01-18. See

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=59221

.

101. ISO 19101:2002 Geographic information – Reference Model. INCITS subsequently approved ISO 19101:2002 as INCITS/ISO 19101-2002 (R2012), available for purchase at

http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS%2fISO+19101-2002+(R2012).

ISO 19101-1 rev. Geographic information – Reference model – Part 1: Fundamentals (Revision of ISO 19101:2002) was published on 2014-11-12.

102. Based on OpenGIS Abstract Specification, Topic 12 “System Architecture,” OpenGIS Consortium, Version 4.3, October 2002, Available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as.

103. The information in this section is taken directly from SDI Cookbook, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDIWiki, last updated 5 June 2014. No longer available at http://www.gsdidocs.org/GSDIWiki/index.php/Main_Page

104. ISO 19119:2005 Geographic information – Services. “ISO 19119:2005 identifies and defines the architecture patterns for service interfaces used for geographic information, defines its relationship to the Open Systems Environment model, presents a geographic services taxonomy and a list of example geographic services placed in the services taxonomy. It also prescribes how to create a platform-neutral service specification, how to derive conformant platform-specific service specifications, and provides guidelines for the selection and specification of geographic services from both platform-neutral and platform-specific perspectives.” INCITS approved ISO 19119:2005 as an American National Standard. Available for purchase at http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS%2fISO+19119-2005.

105. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012.

106. Office of Management and Budget, Federal IT Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012.

107. Office of Management and Budget, Federal IT Shared Services Strategy, May 2, 2012.

108. Uncle Sam’s List, April 2013. Available to Federal employees through the OMB MAX at

https://login.max.gov/cas/login?service=https%3A%2F%2Funclesamslist.max.gov%2F

Public site available at http://unclesamslist.us/

109. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012.

110. Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, December 21, 2010. Federal Geographic Data Committee, in support of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council.

111.

https://www.geoplatform.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2012-09-12-geospatial-platform-business-plan-redacted-final.pdf

final.pdf

112. Ibid.

113. https://www.data.gov/

114. https://gist.github.com/kalxas/5ab6237b4163b0fdc930

115. Ibid.

116. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). GEOINT App Store. https://apps.nga.mil/about

117. https://www1.nga.mil/DATAAPPS/Pages/AccessDataAppStore.aspx.

118.http://defensesystems.com/articles/2013/10/22/geoint-app-store.aspx .

119. The information in this section is taken directly from the (Unclassified) Enterprise Registry and Repository entry from Intellipedia as redirected from http://www.intelink.gov/wiki/ER2

120. The information in this section is taken directly from the CIO Council’s Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013. Available at

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-

Guide.pdf

121. Ibid.

122. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012.

123. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a130notice

124. Ibid.

125. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, April 30, 2012.

126. Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 23, 2012.

127.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html

128. Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 23, 2012.

129. Technopedia.com 3-Tier Architecture definition. http://www.techopedia.com/definition/24649/three-tier-architecture

130. https://geoplatform.gov/

131. https://gii.dhs.gov

132. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, February 8, 2011.

133.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy14_guidance_on_exhibits_53_and_300.pdf

134. Public Law 107-347-DEC. 17 2002. Federal Information Security Management Act, 2002. 44 U.S.C., Sec 3542.

135. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, (January 29, 2013), available at

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

136. Other significant aspects include Certification & Accreditation (now called Assessment & Authorization), FISMA compliance, Physical Security, Network Security, Communications Security, and many others. These aspects are outside of the scope of this document.

137. Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) Roadmap and Implementation Guidance, Version 2.0, December 2, 2011. Federal Chief Information Officers Council. The guidance is available at

http://www.idmanagement.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FICAM_Roadmap_and_Implementation_Guidance_v2%200_201112

02_0.pdf

138. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea

139. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-64 Revision 2, Security Considerations in the System Development Life Cycle, October 2008.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-64-Rev2/SP800-64-Revision2.pdf

140. Federal Information Technology Shared Services Strategy, OMB, May 2, 2012

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/shared_services_strategy.pdf

141. Reference removed

142. Federal Enterprise Architecture Geospatial Profile, Version 1.1, January 27, 2006. (no longer available).

143. NASA Geospatial Standards Study, http://www.ec-gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/reference/ROI_Study.pdf

144. German DIN Study on the economic value of standards.http://www.din.de/cmd?level=tpl- artikel&languageid=en&cmstextid=145918

145. Ibid.

146. United Nation Economic and Social Council, 14 June 2013, Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management.

http://ggim.un.org/docs/meetings/3rd%20UNCE/E-C20-2013-8-Setting%20Geospatial%20Standards%20Report.pdf

147.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-08.pdf

148. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/

149. Much of the information in this section is taken directly from the Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) Wiki. The content of this section is taken from an article that is a white paper (Open Source and Open Standards, May 5, 2011) jointly published by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and OSGeo. The article is available at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Open_Source_and_Open_Standards

150. http://opensource.org/

151. http://www.fsf.org/

152. CIO Council Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide, April 16, 2013. Available at

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf

153. Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset, May 9, 2013. Available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf

154. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119

155. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/federal_engagement_in_standards_activities_ october12-final.pdf .

156.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=5

4904

157.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=54904&published=on&includesc=true

158. http://standards.incits.org/a/public/group/l1

159. http://www.opengeospatial.org

160. http://www.fgdc.gov/standards

161. http://www.gwg.nga.mil/index.php

162. http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/

163. http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/organization/GIRM

164.

http://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf

165. The information in this section is taken from the Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0, May 14, 2010.

166.

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

.

167.

https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/list

168. http://www.fgdc.gov/fgdc-news/fgdc-endorses-64-external-standards

169. Much of the content in this sub-section is taken directly from the Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group web site and is available at http://www.gwg.nga.mil/guide.php

170. The content in this sub-section is taken directly from the Defense Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) web site and supporting documents and is available at http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/

171. DGIWG – 909 Web Services Roadmap, Version 1.1.0, 16 November 2014. This document is approved for public release and is available on the DGIWG website,

http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm

172.

http://www.dgiwg.org/dgiwg/htm/documents/committee_enterprise_documents.htm

.

173. The Open Geospatial Consortium Reference Model, Version 2.1, December 12, 2011, Reference number OGC 08-062r7. The document is available at http://www.opengis.net/doc/orm/2.1.

174. http://ggim.un.org/

175. OGC “Call for Volunteers to advance UN-GGIM Core Standards Guide” memo to Technical Committee and Business Value Committee members. January 23, 2014.

176. UNGGIM’s A Guide to the Role of Standards in Geospatial Information Management, (Draft version), May 30, 2014. Prepared cooperatively by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC); ISO/TC 211, Geospatial Information/Geomatics; and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). External identifier of this document: http://www.opengis.net/doc/WP/unggim-standards/1.0

177. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at

http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29-

2013.pdf

178. Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf

179. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013.

180.

https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf

181.

https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/geospatial-lob/index_html

182.

http://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/resources/geospatial-profile-of-the-FEA-v2-march-2009.pdf

.

183. OMB Memo: Increasing Shared Approaches to Information Technology Services, May 2, 1012, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/


sharedapproachmemo_0502.pdf

184. OMB Memorandum to Agency Chief Architects, Guidance on 2013 Federal Agency Enterprise Roadmaps, March 29, 2013.

185. Program Manager – Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE), Information Interoperability Framework (I2F), Version 0.5, March 2014, available at http://ise.gov/ise-information-interoperability-framework.

186. Department of Homeland Security, COP/UDOP Sensitive But Unclassified Segment Architecture, Version 1.0 (DRAFT), April 27, 2012, prepared by the Geospatial Management Office.

187. http://www.nsgic.org/

188. http://www.nsgic.org/geospatial-maturity-assessment/

189. http://www.urisa.org/main/about-us/

190.

http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/GMI/GISCMM-Final201309%28Endorsed%20for%20Publication%29.pdf

191. Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, October 2010.

192. Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, October 2010.

193. Department of Homeland Security, Information Sharing and Access Agreements Guidebook and Templates, revision version 2.1, October 2010.

Updated on February 4, 2020