Geospatial Standards in Action A National Workshop Series Presented by Doug Nebert, FGDC...

Geospatial Standardsin Action

A National Workshop Series

Presented by Doug Nebert, FGDCCo-presented by Steve Blake, ANZLIC

Workshop Series

Date Place Contact07 Oct 2002 Hobart Michael Varney 08 Oct 2002 Melbourne Cathy Chipchase09 Oct 2002 Canberra Paul Treloar & 10 Oct2002 Canberra Ehsan Ullah11 Oct 2002 Adelaide Yvonne Weir14 Oct 2002 Perth Tessa Pittendrigh16 Oct 2002 Brisbane Adeline Yuksel 17 Oct 2002 Sydney Paul Mitchell 18 Oct 2002 Wellington Merita Lau Young

Workshop SeriesSponsored by:

Typical Standards Issues

• Where do I go to find out which standards exist and if they are adopted broadly?

• Where do “retired” and “superseded” standards go to rest?

• How can I feed into the standards setting process?

• What’s the difference between a catalog, a directory, a registry, a repository and a service registry?

Outline of Workshop 1. Introduction re: context of “Geospatial

Standards in Action" within the ASDI - Steve

2. OGC, ISO, FGDC, ANZLIC and WWWC and how they all inter-relate - Doug;

3. What's big at the moment? - Doug• XML & GML Ver 3.0• ISO 19100 series• UML – Conceptual schema language• Web Services & Service Registries

Outline of Workshop 4. What other standards are important? -

Doug

• ISO;

• WWWC;

• OGC;

• Etc

Outline of Workshop 5. How do we implement standards? - Doug• Pilots• Testbeds• Profiles• Specifications• Formal “Standards”• Standards bodies (eg. Standards Australia)• Reference Implementations• COTS products

Outline of Workshop 6. How are these standards being applied in the

NSDI and CGDI? - Doug7. Recommendations for Australia/ NZ in terms of

implementing a national SDI - Doug8. Summary of presentation & examples of

Australian activities – Steve9. Conclusions - Steve10. Question & Answer Session – Doug & Steve

The Reasons for Holding this Workshop

• Individual’s own work (GIS, image processing, shared on-line resources) & need to integrate datasets and systems;

• The ASDI Distribution Network concept – allow some planning certainty;

• The maturing of several standards & specification setting processes;

The Reasons for Holding this Workshop • The rise of Web Services and Geospatial

Web Services as mainstream;• Tyrany of distance – Australian

involvement in the Stds setting and specification development process;

• Awareness of where standards are at (formalised, draft in-progress, forgotten!);

• Unsure how the standards inter-relate and support one another;

The Reasons for Holding this Workshop • Unsure of the difference between a

standard, a specification and a reference implementation;

• What is the relationship between ISO, Stds Aust/NZ, OpenGIS Consortium, World Wide Web Consortium, NOIE etc. are they complimentary or competing;

• When and how does a standard find its way into COTS products?

The Reasons for Holding this Workshop

• Managed to finally throw a net over Doug and bring him to these shores;

• TC211 has largely completed the core standards work 19101 – 19120;

• Standard after 19120 are largely stamping OGC specifications;

• “The good thing about standards is there are so many of them to choose from!”

ASDI Conceptual “Standards Framework”ASDI Conceptual “Standards Framework”

UsersUsers

InterfacesInterfaces

ApplicationsApplications

DirectoriesDirectories

InterfacesInterfaces

ServicesProvider

ServicesProvider

DatabasesDatabases DatabasesDatabases

ISO 19100 DATA STANDARDS

MetadataEncodingClassificationFeature CatalogSpatial Reference systemGazetteerGeocoderGeoparseretc.

OpenGISSPECIFICATIONS

OGC Client Data ModelOGC Catalog ServicesOGC Web Map ServerOGC Web Feature ServerOGC Web Coverage ServerGML etc.

WWWC STANDARDS

XMLhttpSVGPDF, etc.

CatalogsCatalogs

ASDIDISTRIBUTION

NETWORK

DA

TA

FO

CU

S

TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y E

NA

BLE

RS

ANZLIC’s Role

• Not operational!! in the sense of IT systems;

• Maintaining software has not been an easy experience;

• Determine the user (Govt/ jurisdictional) needs and summarise (eg. metadata profile);

The ANZLIC “Enabling” Layer

PolicyPolicyDriversDrivers

ProjectsProjects

Data, Information & TechnologiesData, Information & Technologies

ASDI Distribution NetworkASDI Distribution Network

ANZLIC FrameworkANZLIC Framework

ANZLICANZLICLayerLayer

ANZLIC’s Role

• Develop the policy environment to allow the projects (under the ASDI banner) to occur and flourish;

• Create the institutional arrangements necessary;

• Communicate best-practice;

• Draw on international expertise;

ANZLIC’s Role • Partner with industry (ASIBA) and the

professions (SSC);

• Help stimulate the spatial data industry;

• Put “some” resources in to provide impetus;

• Dedicated Standing Committees and Working Groups;

• A forum for ideas sharing

Providing the Context

• Standards need context!

ClearinghouseClearinghouse

GeoparserGeoparser

Advancing Spatial Data Infrastructure Via Interoperable Web & Location Based Services

• Reduce Reduce deployment costs deployment costs by reusing by reusing information from information from other communitiesother communities

• Tools to provide Tools to provide custom information custom information to usersto users

• Foundation for Foundation for interoperable interoperable service networksservice networks

• Easier access to multiple online info sources and servicesEasier access to multiple online info sources and services

• Use and reuse different vendor solutions.Use and reuse different vendor solutions.

VendorData

Local Government

NationalGovernment

OtherCollections

Clearinghouse

WhovilleCedar Lake

WhovilleCedar Lake

BuildingsRoadsImagesTargetsBoundaries ...

CatalogView

Common interfaces enable interoperability

Queries extract info from diverse sources

Integrated View

Gazetteer CoordinateTransform

Web Mapping Server, Web Feature Server, Web Coverage Server Catalog Services

OtherServices

MetadataData

MetadataData

MetadataData

Metadata

Internet

Geoparser

Geocoder

Source: OpenGIS Consortium

The Underlying Theme

• Store once;

• Manage professionally;

• Use many times;

• Within an SDI framework

Single Vendor Solution

Custom integration with limited partners

Difficult to integrate

Higher risk over long term

Moving Away from the ‘Walled Garden’


Unlimited number of services

Easier integration with partners

Easier integration of other application services

Flexible enough to support new technologies

Toward the ‘Open Platform’ approach


ASDI Distribution Network

• Seamless access to spatial data and information services that can be accessed and used by anyone, anywhere;

• Improvements in the cost effective and efficient delivery of data and information services to a broad range of users from all data distributors, regardless of their size;

• Ensure custodians retain specified rights and responsibilities for their data accessed from the ASDI-DN;


• Ensure privacy and security of data and protection of property rights;

• A common architecture using open systems technologies and standards to facilitate interoperability will be used to guide implementation and use of the ASDI-DN.

Example of an OGC Pilot ProjectExample of an OGC Pilot Project


Functional Model

Bind

Find Publish

Broker

Client Service

Registry

Based on the Generic Web Services Model

Bind

Find Publish

Registry

ClientService

Data CatalogService RegistriesData modelsVocabulariesSymbolisation rules

DataStylingGazetteerAuthenticationGeocoding

ChainValue AddIntegration

Thin Client

Thick Client

Web BrowserHosted Application

Plug-insMobile Devices

Desktop GIS

Value Added Providers

Users

Providers

InfrastructureServices

Example Pilot Project Computational View

Data Type

Registry

Data InstanceRegistry

Service Type

Registry

Data Services Portrayal Services

Registry Services

Application Clients

BindFind

Publish

WFSWFS

Terrain ViewerTerrain Viewer

Encodings & Protocols

Annot. ViewerAnnot. Viewer

Service InstanceRegistry

XIMAXIMA SLDSLD

WTSWTSWCSWCS

ValueAdd

ValueAdd

SensorML

DiscoverDiscover MapViewerMap

Viewer

SSL &X.509SSL &X.509

WFST+WFST+

GMLGML

ServiceMetadataService

Metadata

WMSWMSCoveragePortrayalService

= Enhanced

= New



• Network of distribution services, service providers and data storage facilities maintained by government agencies, private sector, academia, community organisations etc;

• The Internet is used as the principal delivery mechanism for data and services;

• Services are provided for the discovery, viewing and access to data;


• Interoperability of search and access mechanisms is provided across multiple data distributors;

• Data and services providers have the flexibility to provide one or many views to their data, while controlling access to their data holdings

© 2001, OGC Inc.. All Rights Reserved© 2001, OGC Inc.. All Rights Reserved 2929

Profiles: Common Architecture StackProfiles: Common Architecture Stack

ServiceIntegration &

Workflow

ServiceDiscovery

ServiceDescription

Service

Data Format,Schema andSemantics

DataRepresentation

& Encoding

Communication Protocols

TCP/IP, HTTP, SSL, SMTP, FTP,IIOP, etc.

ASCII, ASN.1/DER, XML, etc.

HTML, XML/S, RDF, XMI, OGC-GML,OGC-WKT/WKB, etc.

OGC SF, Coverage, Coordinate Transform,WMS, etc.HTTP, SOAP, COM, CORBA, SQL, J2EE, etc.

WSDL,ISO-19119, etc.

UDDI, OGC-Catalog, etc.

WSFL, XLANG, ISO19119

Interoperability Layers Interoperability Standards

Connectivity

Interoperability

DCP

The Services Interoperability Stack

• A “protocol stack”;

• A layered architecture of technology and standards on which services can be implemented and deployed;

• Lowest level of the stack enable connectivity of software components by enabling them to bind, send & receive messages via publish-find-bind mechanisms;

The Services Interoperability Stack

• Higher levels in the stack enable interoperability and via publish-find-bind mechanisms, allow software components to work together

• Standards in the stack are all mainstream OGC, NOIE, WWC and ISO-endorsed stds

Inte

rope

rabi

lity

Sta

ck

Requestor

ASDI DN Conceptual Model

Registor

Bind

Find

Provider

ServiceIntegration &

Workflow

ServiceDiscovery

ServiceDescription

Service

Data Format,Schema andSemantics

DataRepresentation

& Encoding

CommunicationProtocols

TCP/IP, HTTP, SSL, FTP, etc.

ASCII, XML, etc.

HTML, XML/S, RDF, XMI, OGC-GML,etc.

Coordinate Transform, WMS, WFS, etc.HTTP, SOAP, COM, CORBA, SQL, J2EE, etc.

WSDL,ISO-19119, ISO-19115,Z39.50 etc.

UDDI, OGC-Catalog, Z39.50 etc.

WSFL, XLANG, ISO19119, ISO-19115

Interoperability Layers Interoperability Standards

Connectivity

Interoperability

Binding

Publish

NOIE Interoperability Framework

“The development of an Interoperability framework will underpin the provision of integrated services by articulating a set of agreed policies and standards to allow electronic information and transactions to operate seamlessly across agencies and jurisdictions”.

http://www.noie.gov.au/index.htm

NOIE Interoperability Framework

Source: NOIE web site

Processing ServicesExamples of Spatial Services

• Coordinate conversion service

• Coordinate transformation service

• Web mapping service

• Orthorectification service

• Spatial subsetting service

• Feature matching service

• Route determination service

About the Workshop Leader • Doug Nebert is the Clearinghouse

Coordinator for the FGDC Secretariat in Reston, Virginia;

• Doug has worked for the past 18 years for the U.S. Geological Survey, first on water resources applications of geographic information systems, then metadata standards and software, and finally, with the FGDC on standardised methods of GIS data dissemination to promote discovery and re-use;

About the Workshop Leader • Chairs the Catalog and Architecture

Working Groups of the OpenGIS Consortium (FGDC is a Principal Strategic member of the OpenGIS Consortium);

• Chairs the Technical Working Group of the GSDI. He is the Information Architect for the U.S. Geospatial One-Stop Initiative (one of 24 e-government initiatives);

About the Workshop Leader • Holds a Bachelors Degree in

Environmental Studies from Evergreen State College (Olympia, Washington) and a Masters of Science in Geography from Portland State University (Portland, Oregon)

• Pilot!

So Many Standards

OGC, ISO, FGDC, ANZLIC, W3C – how do they interrelate?

Why Geo Standards?

• Standardization lets peers communicate

• Minimizes cost of uptake of new information

• Maximizes utility and stability of information products

• Permits more applications to operate under known conditions

Introduction to Standardization Organizations

• Many standardization activities exist with different roles and responsibilities that are relevant to implementing SDIs:– International Organisation of Standardization

(ISO TC 211, TC 204, JTC-1)– World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)– OpenGIS Consortium (OGC)– National Standards Organizations

Roles of Consensus Organizations

• ISO provides general purpose standards and specifications as guidance to implementation

• Industry Consortia provide technical implementation specifications

• National/Community groups define common practices, content, and interaction within and outside the group

Geospatial Standardization

OpenGIS OpenGIS Consortium, W3CConsortium, W3C

Software interfaces(ImplementationSpecifications)

ISO TC 211ISO TC 211

Foundations forimplementation.

(Abstract standards)

NationalNationalStandardsStandards

Content standards,Authority for data

Endorsed practices and specification

s

SDISDI

OtherNSDIs

RegionalSDI Coordination

GSDI

ISO TC211 Background

• 29 participating (voting) nations

• 27 observing nations

• 22 external liaison organizations

• First Plenary Norway, 1994

• Next 15th will be in Korea, November 2002

• 37 work items initiated

• 20 to be published by end of 2002

ISO TC211 Work Items

World Wide Web Consortium

• Mission: “to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability.”

• A Recommendation is work that represents consensus within W3C and has the Director's stamp of approval. W3C considers that the ideas or technology specified by a Recommendation are appropriate for widespread deployment and promote W3C's mission.

• Such specifications developed within W3C must be formally approved by the Membership. Consensus is reached after a specification has proceeded through the review stages of Working Draft, Proposed Recommendation, and Recommendation.

W3C Contributions

• HTML• HTTP• PNG• SOAP/XMLP• SVG• URI/URL• XHTML• XLink

• XML• XML Query• XML Schema • XPath• XPointer• XSL and XSLT• CSS• DOM

OpenGIS Consortium• Focus on interoperability of

software at the interface level to promote plug-and-play components for geographic information interchange

• Not-for-profit, international consortium

• 220+ industry, government, NGO and university members

OGC VisionOGC Vision

A world in which A world in which everyone benefits everyone benefits

fromfromgeographic geographic

information and information and services made services made

available available across any network, across any network,

application, or application, or platform.platform.

OGC MissionOGC Mission

Our core mission is to Our core mission is to deliverdeliver

spatial interface spatial interface specificationsspecifications

that are openly that are openly available for global available for global

use.use.

OGC Programs

• Specification Development Program -similar to other Industry consortia (W3C, OMG, etc.).

• Interoperability Program (IP) - a global, innovative, hands-on engineering and testing program designed to accelerate interface development and bring interoperability to the market.

• Outreach and Community Adoption Program – education and training, encourage take up of OGC interfaces, business development,

OGC Specifications• Simple Features Access (SQL, CORBA, OLE)• Catalog Services• Grid Coverages• Coordinate Transformation Services• Web Map Server Interfaces• Geography Markup Language• Web Feature Service• Filter Encoding Specification• Styled Layer Descriptor

Establish definition of and terms of engagement in *SDI

Interactions

ISO

TC 211 TC 204

JTC-1

National Standards

Organizations

Provideexpertise &candidate stds.

Review &approvestds.

Adopter/Implementer Community


OpenGISConsortium

(OGC)

World WideWeb Consortium

(W3C)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

Facilitation Bodies• GSDI• ANZLIC• PCGIAP• FGDC • PAIGH• INSPIRE• GeoConnections• CODI/UNECA• AGI• …

W3C: HTTP, PNG, RDF, SOAP/XMLP (Web Services Activity), XML, Xlink, Xpath, Xpointer, XSL/XSLT, XML Schema

OGC: Web Map Server, Web Feature Server, GML, Web Coverage Server, Style Layer Descriptor, Catalog Service

ISO: Ref Model, Terminology, Conformance testing, Profiles, Spatial Schema, Temporal Schema, Feature Cataloguing Methodology, Spatial Ref by Coords and Ids, Quality, Metadata, WMS, GML, LBS, Registration of Geo-information Items

Metadata Profile, Data Content Standards, etc.

Class A liaison

XML Protocol (XMLP),XML Signature, I18N

Class C Liaison:XML, I18N

Community Coordination

• FGDC and GeoConnections provide national fora for agreement on the common adoption of a suite of standards and practices that as a whole will function as a Spatial Data Infrastructure

• The Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) initiative seeks to promote compatible SDIs worldwide

Scope of National Solutions

• Data Content Standards

• Geographic Location Gazetteer

• Geodetic Reference Systems

• Feature Type Catalogs

• National Information Profiles of International Standards

• Data Policies and Laws

Navigating the minefield

• Standardization should be a least-cost means of establishing a common means of interaction between participants in a process

• Community facilitators such as ANZLIC can play a critical role in building consensus on a requirements-based architecture and then specifying the context of relevant standards, specs, and practices to be adopted

The players

ISO

StandardsAustralia



OpenGISConsortium

(OGC)World Wide

Web Consortium(W3C)

ANZLIC &AURISA

Users ASDIblueprint

Policies,Agreements,Technologies

Coordination

Prominent standards and specifications relevant to

geospatial activities

Douglas Nebert, FGDC Secretariat

Prominent Topics

• Unified Modeling Language (UML)

• ISO 19100 Series standards

• W3C Recommendations

• OGC Specifications

• Other: SOAP and UDDI

Problem: The ability to exchange software and data models between software development (CASE) systems and data in a system-and vendor-neutral manner

Solution: Unified Modeling Language (UML)

Evidence: Support by software design and CASE environment, ISO TC 211 endorsed conceptual schema language

What is UML?• Unified Modeling Language• UML is an industry standard language for

visualizing, specifying, constructing, and documenting artifacts of a software-intensive system

• Platform-neutral environment for abstract modeling of data and processes

• Adopted as the Conceptual Schema Language for ISO TC 211

UML Diagrams

Use CaseDiagramsUse Case

DiagramsUse CaseDiagrams

ScenarioDiagramsScenario

DiagramsCollaborationDiagrams

StateDiagramsState

DiagramsComponentDiagrams

ComponentDiagramsComponent

DiagramsDeploymentDiagrams

StateDiagramsState

DiagramsObjectDiagrams

ScenarioDiagramsScenario

DiagramsStatechartDiagrams

Use CaseDiagramsUse Case

DiagramsSequenceDiagrams

StateDiagramsState

DiagramsClassDiagrams

ActivityDiagrams

Models

Class Diagram• Captures the ‘vocabulary’ of a system

• Built and refined throughout development

• Purpose– Name and model concepts in the system– Specify collaborations– Specify logical database schemas

• Developed by analysts, designers, and implementers

UML Class Diagram

The UML• Useful for diagramming systems, objects,

and relationships• Many diagrammatic conventions• Many ways to diagram the same thing• Can serialize the UML as XML (XMI)• CASE tools or transforming programs can

create implementation bindings• FGDC is sponsoring a UML-to-GML

transform program for data schemas

W3C Recommendations

• XML: eXtensible Markup Language

• XML Schema: Validation reference for XML

• XSL/XSLT: XML Style Language/Transform

• SOAP/XMLP: Simple Object Access Protocol, XML-Protocol

XML is a family of technologies for data handling

XML

Resource Description Framework (RDF)

XSLTXPointer

XLink

SVG (Graphics)

XML Schema (XSD)

(Web Services Description Language)

WSDL

The XML ‘Family’

SOAPXML Protocol

© Galdos Systems Inc. April 2002

Problem: The inability to express a common format and support it with widely available software parsing tools

Solution: XML and XML-Schema provide the context and structure to support encoding of many types of information. XSLT permits the easy transformation of XML

Evidence: Implemented by hundreds of software products and solutions providers

XML 1.0• eXtensible Markup Language is a partial subset

of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML: ISO 8879:1988)

• Intended to store the structure and relationship of information in a readily parseable format

• Expressed as characters, though element contents can also be numbers or links

• Non-Latin character sets are also supported in XML

<title>My new book</title><author>Knut Hampson</author>

<title dated = “11-Jun-2005”>My new book</title><author>Knut Hampson</author>

Elements can have modifiers called attributes.

Things in angle brackets are called elements or tags </title> indicates closing of the element !!

How is XML structured?


Document Structure Description

(or Document Type Declaration DTD)

<book> <title>Hunger</title> <author> <first>Knut</first> <last>Hamson</last> </author> <chapter> It was bitter cold this morning. Bitter cold. </chapter></book>

XML Source Document

<!element book(title, author, chapter*)>

<!element title #PCDATA>

<!element author (first, last) >

<!element last #PCDATA>

<!element first #PCDATA>

<!element chapter #PCDATA>

Validation of XML


What is XML Schema ?

• Another more powerful data description language to assist in validation of XML

• It is more precise than (and replaces) a DTD. It is the workhorse of XML!

• Supports data types and restrictions

• Simple and complex structures


XML & XML Schema (XSD)

An XML Schema Editor view of a simple telephone schema


XML Schema Types by restriction

• Enumerations ( Wattage = (“150W”, “300W”, “400W”)

• Ranges ( elevation is between –500 and 500 )

• Pattern (ParcelID = ( 4 letters (A-W) and then 3 digits.))


What is XSLT?

• An XML language developed for transforming XML.

• It is the basis of XML styling !

• XML can be styled (transformed) into HTML, SVG etc.


XSLT

• eXtensible Style Sheet Transformations Language

• Declarative match and action language.• Uses the XPath grammar for selection and

navigation.• Widely deployed technology for transforming

XML (MSXML, Xalan, Saxon)


XSLT Mechanics

Template Rule Specification

Key element is <xsl:template> that defines the template rules

Template rule says what to match and what action to take !

Style Sheet

<xsl:template match="/"> <xsl:apply-templates select="exp:SubDivision"/></xsl:template><xsl:template match="exp:SubDivision"> <xsl:apply-templates select="gml:featureMember"/></xsl:template><xsl:template match="gml:featureMember"> <xsl:apply-templates

select="exp:LandParcel[@gml:fid='PIN04']"/></xsl:template>


XSLT Tools

• XSLT is very widely used.• IE 5.0 has XSLT built-in (MSXML)• XSLT Engines from many sources

– SAXON (Michael Kay – ICL)– Xalan (Apache XML project)– MSXML3 (Microsoft)– 4XSLT (Fourthought)

• XSLT Compilers emerging (Sun)


XML + 3 XSL stylesheets =

ISO TC 211 (19100 Series)

• 19103 - Conceptual schema language

• 19107 - Spatial schema

• 19112 - Spatial referencing by geographic identifiers

• 19115 - Metadata

• 19118 - Encoding

• 19119 - Services

Problem: Information exchange between data and service providers requires a common design framework that can be directly encoded

Solution: ISO 19103 Conceptual Schema Language

Evidence: ISO 19100 series of standards all expressed using constrained UML

19103.DIS - Conceptual Schema Language

• Intended to specify the use computer-interpretable models, or schemas, of geographic information in 19100 standards

• Unambiguous abstract schemas are the basis for data interchange and the definition of interoperable services

• Expressed using UML structure diagrams

• 19103 is a Technical Specification

Problem: The representation of geometry and basic spatial operators by different implementations varies subtly in incompatible ways

Solution: ISO 19107 Spatial Schema

Evidence: Adoption of spatial objects and operations by OGC as a common spatial object model

19107.FDIS - Spatial Schema

• Geometry model and operators used by ISO (and harmonized by OGC) model

• Supports 0,1,2,3 dimensions

• Permits specification of topology

• Definition of geometric objects along with well-defined operators assure that results can be comparable within known limitations of accuracy and resolution

Problem: How should information may be associated with named locations without ambiguity?

Solution: ISO 19112 provides a schema to store and reference authoritative place names and codes

Evidence: 19112 being used as the basis for a searchable digital gazetteer

19112.FDIS - Spatial referencing by geographic identifiers

• Features, descriptions, metadata may be associated with either coordinates or by well-known place “identifiers” (names or codes)

• Standard specifies a reference scheme for places, distance along a named feature, adjacent to a feature

• Includes basic constructs for a gazetteer

Problem: Data are documented in drastically different ways by vendor/user and discipline communities

Solution: ISO 19115 Metadata provides structure and meaning to nearly 300 identifiable data properties

Evidence: Main GIS providers already offering an early profile of 19115 for use

19115.FDIS – Metadata • Specifies the definitions, optionality, and

repeatability of descriptions of digital spatial data to promote proper use and effective retrieval of the data

• Includes extension procedures• Standard now does not include the XML

representation• A new Technical Specification will include XML

Schema for more rigorous validation• Estimated approval dates: Q2 2003

Problem: Spatial data need to be transferred from system to system using a reliable and rigorous packaging

Solution: ISO 19118 Encoding specifies how geographic objects can be serialized using XML

Evidence: UML-to-XML converters have been written to create repeatable XML structures

19118.FDIS – Encoding • requirements for creating encoding rules

based on UML schemas,

• requirements for creating encoding services,

• an informative XML based encoding rule for neutral interchange of geographic data.

What encoding yields

Problem: How do we describe and discover geospatial (and other) available services online for both human and computer use?

Solution: ISO 19119 services metadata provides guidance on structures for services and operations

Evidence: Services metadata and registries are still a research topic without consensus

19119.DIS – Services

• Services metadata and structures

• Descriptions of service/operation interface characteristics and supportive structures

• Still must be harmonized with emerging other model approaches (WSDL, ebXML, UDDI)

OpenGIS Top Drawer Specs

• Catalog Services (1.1.1 pending)

• Web Map Service (WMS 1.1.1)

• Geography Markup Language (GML 2.1)

• Web Feature Server (WFS 1.0)

• Filter Specification (Filter 1.0)

• Style Layer Descriptor (SLD 1.0)

Publish, Find, Bind

Catalog

Problem: The ability to search for spatial information using the same set of fields and get similarly structured results from different servers

Solution: OGC Catalog Services

Evidence: Z39.50 implementations, FGDC, ASDD, UK, others

OGC Catalog Services 1.1• Support the search and retrieval of

descriptive information (metadata) on an information resource (dataset, service, schema, etc.)

• Version 1.1 has Implementation Profiles for developing catalogs in CORBA and Z39.50 (ASDD conforms to this)

Catalog Service

DiscoveryService

(mandatory)

DiscoveryOperations

(mandatory)

AccessService

(optional)

AccessOperations(optional)

ManagementService

(optional)

ManagementOperations(optional)

OperationsClasses

Includes init, closefunctions

DirectDirect BrokeredBrokered

CatalogService

CatalogService

Catalog Futures

• Registries work will be folded into and made consistent with Catalog spec in 2003

• Recommendations on support of public service registry APIs (e.g. UDDI) with OGC catalog APIs to come

• Suggest focused test bed with use cases for national data&service/catalog&registry

The Ideal Catalog Service

DataCatalogEntry

GenerateMetadata

link to

DataObject

ServiceInstance

data served by service

service referenced by data

ServiceCatalogEntry

GenerateMetadata

link to

Catalog Service

Internet

association

Problem: To make a request for a map from different map services regardless of vendor using the same request language

Solution: OGC Web Map Server interface

Evidence: Broad commercial implementation as an add-on to proprietary map services

OGC Web Map Server 1.1.1

• Establishes a common vocabulary for the request and delivery of a raster graphic based on a number of parameters using GET/POST

• Three operations:– Capabilities: returns service and layer information– Map: returns map based on request arguments– FeatureInfo: returns attribute information for the

selected feature(s)

• Now supports SLD reference to apply custom style to layer

Web Browser

IntegrativeWeb Server

getMapgetMap

WMS Interface WMS Interface

Request Response with single orMultiple maps as GIF/JPEG

Software A

DataData

Data Data

Data

Software B

DataData

Data Data

Data

Client

GetMap Request Example:

http://b-maps.com/map.cgi?WMTVER=1.0.0&REQUEST=map&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-97.105,24.913,78.794,36.358&WIDTH=560&HEIGHT=350&LAYERS=BUILTUPA_1M%3ACubeWerx,COASTL_1M%3ACubeWerx,POLBNDL_1M%3ACubeWerx&STYLES=0XFF8080,0X101040,BLACK&FORMAT=PNG&BGCOLOR=0xFFFFFF&TRANSPARENT=FALSE&EXCEPTIONS=INIMAGE&QUALITY=MEDIUM

http://b-maps.com/map.cgi?WMTVER=1.0.0&REQUEST=map&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-97.105,24.913,78.794,36.358&WIDTH=560&HEIGHT=350&LAYERS=AVHRR-09-27%3AMIT-mbay,BUILTUPA_1M%3ACubeWerx,COASTL_1M%3ACubeWerx,POLBNDL_1M%3ACubeWerx&STYLES= default,0XFF8080,0X101040,BLACK&FORMAT=PNG&BGCOLOR=0xFFFFFF&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&EXCEPTIONS=INIMAGE&QUALITY=MEDIUM

GetMap Request Example:

Problem: No vendor-independent way to format vector feature and attribute information for exchange over the Web

Solution: Geography Markup Language (GML)

Evidence: Commercial implementations and national service implementations (Ordnance Survey, UK)

Geography Markup Language (GML 2.1.2)

• OGC “Adopted Specification” (GML 2.1.2 currrent) for encoding spatial information.

• A set of XML technologies (schema fragments) for expressing spatial data on the Internet.

• Emerging international standard for spatial data—endorsed by 200 + companies and agencies around the world.

• Propose GML Version 3.0 by early 2003


GML What is it?

• A data transport.• A schema language.

– Information Communities– Types for Web-Services

• A storage model for linked data spanning multiple servers.


Why GML ?

• GML is easily transformed – coordinate conversion, schema conversion, presentation conversion

• GML is non-proprietary and open! Any client can talk to any server!

• GML enables non-proprietary web feature servers, image/map annotation, map styling and spatial analysis.


GML Technical Objectives• Encode geometry of geo-spatial features.• Provide a schema language for geo-spatial

features.• Encode non-geometric properties of spatial

features.• Encode feature relationships and feature

topology.• Encode temporal evolution of features and

feature properties.


GML Encoding – XML Schema

You must create an application schema !!

GML Application Schema

GML Instance Document

Written as XML Schema + GML Rules !! Describes feature types !

GML description of the feature instances


Feature : named list of properties

FeatureType (road)

name

description

geometry

length

direction


GML Feature

GML Namespace

<exp:Building fid = “st100”><exp:noFloors>100</exp:noFloors><exp:use>Residential</exp:use>< exp: surfaceArea>100000</exp:surfaceArea>< exp: frontsOn>Georgia Street</exp:frontsOn><exp:streetNumber>1150</exp:streetNumber><gml:locationOf>

<gml:Point srsName = “ … “><gml:coordinates>55661.1454,

454656.67</gml:coordinates></gml:Point>

</gml:locationOf></ exp: Building>


What’s coming in GML ?

• GML 3.0 – Anticipated for 2003• Also new work item: ISO19136• Converge with G-XML (Japan)• Many new features including:

» Topology » 3D and non-linear geometries» Coverages» Temporal support» Metadata support» Units of Measure» Default Styling» Points of Interest


Problem: No consistent way to request and receive well-known packages of vector information as a Web service

Solution: OGC Web Feature Server provides for request and response of vector data

Evidence: OGC WFS recently approved but beta implementations available from main GIS vendors

OGC Web Feature Server 1.0• Provides discovery and request interfaces

for selecting “vector” spatial data and their attributes

• May use OGC Filter Expression or other query language

• Returns “raw” data structures as ASCII, XML, GML

• May support transactional locking

WFSFeature access/modification

App. ServerPresentation/Analysis Client

OPERATIONS:

• Describe Capabilities• Describe Feature Schema• Get a Feature• Insert a Feature• Update a Feature• Delete a Feature• Modify Feature Schema• Lock Features

RETURN :

• Capabilities (XML)• Feature Schema (XML/S)• Feature + Attribute (XML- GML)• Feature Transaction (XML- GML)

REQUEST:

• GetCapabilities• DescribeFeatureType• Query• Transaction (insert, modify, delete)• Lock Feature• Schema Synchronization

OGC Web Feature ServerSpecifications V 1.0.0)

WFS

OGC Web Feature Server

OGC Filter Specification• XML encoding of OGC Common Catalog Query

Language (CQL) as a system neutral representation of a query predicate.

• Does not specify the contents, only the result set• Permits decomposition of a neutral query into

other query languages and environments such as: – XML Xpath Expressions– SQL “WHERE” clause

• A large class of OpenGIS web based service require the ability to express filter expressions in XML.

Filter as a Common Query Language

XMLDB

WFS

SQLDB

Xpath Expression

SQL Expression

Filter Expression

Client Filter Expression

transform

transform

transform

Filter Expression Example<Filter> <And> <Within> <PropertyName>WKB_GEOM</PropertyName> <Polygon name="1" srsName="EPSG:4326"> <outerBoundaryIs> <LinearRing> <coordinates>-98.5485,24.2633 ...</coordinates> </LinearRing> </outerBoundaryIs> </Polygon> </Within> <PropertyIsBetween> <PropertyName>ELEVATION</PropertyName> <LowerBoundary>400</LowerBoundary> <UpperBoundary>800</UpperBoundary> </PropertyIsBetween> </And></Filter>

Find all properties between 400 and 800melevation that fall within aselection polygon.

Problem: When requesting a map from a WMS, there is little control over symbology that the user can express

Solution: OGC Styled Layer Descriptor is an XML stylesheet that a map server can apply to deliver custom map styles

Evidence: New specification but commercial beta implementations now exist

Styled Layer Descriptor (SLD)• Specification for an XML file to apply styles based on

selection criteria against a feature service (typically WFS)

• Style sheet for symbolizing vector or raster data• Not an interface specification

Web Browser

WMS Client

Web Feature Server

SLD Doc

Web Map

Server

GetMap

Map Features

GetFeature

FetchReference XML

Using an SLD

references Add to WMS “get” request:SLD=reference_SLD_URL

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <!DOCTYPE StyledLayerDescriptor (View Source for full doctype...)>  <StyledLayerDescriptor version="0.7.1"> <NamedLayer name="VEGETAT_A:nrcan"> <UserStyle name="Topographic"> <IsDefault>1</IsDefault> <Rule> <Title>Wooded Area</Title> <Filter> <SqlExpression>ATC = 1412</SqlExpression> </Filter> <PolygonSymbol> <Fill> <Color>#D1FFD9</Color> </Fill> </PolygonSymbol> </Rule>

SLD Example

OGC WMS Using SLD

OGC WMS Using SLD

Rendering• Map server

Client• Web Browser• Application

Feature Delivery• Feature Server

Application

Map Server service

Feature Server service

Chaining/Stacking OGC Services

Feature Access• Native DBMS

WMS interface

WFS interface

SFA interface

Simple Feature Access Server

Other Standards

• Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)

• Web Services Definitions Language (WSDL)

SOAP – Simple Object Access Protocol

SOAP provides an XML envelope for

your message

“I can deliver your message

over HTTP, HTTP/S or SMTP “

Your message

What is SOAP ?• A messaging protocol: an XML syntax for sending messages over the Internet via HTTP, SMTP, etc.

• The foundation of web-based services (RPC & document exchange)

• W3C work item to move SOAP to the XML Protocol (XMLP)

•Fundamental part of Microsoft .NET


SOAP Design

SOAP Message

HTTP Headers

SOAP Envelope

SOAP Header

SOAP Body

<soap:envelope> <soap:header>

</soap:header> <soap:body> XML DATA GOES HERE </soap:body></soap:envelope>

Two types of SOAP

SOAP Client

SOAP Service

SOAP RPC Handler passes request and connects to procedureClient blocked until response

received

SOAP Client

SOAP Service

SOAP Message

Do an action

Asynchronous Request

Why SOAP ?

• Simple, extensible, platform-independent (cf. COM or CORBA)

• Works across firewalls since it is transported over HTTP and HTTP/S.

• Widely supported in commercial tools.

• Many language bindings are available: Java, C++, Python, Perl, etc.

Web Services Definition Language - WSDL

• An XML language for describing web-based services (an IDL of sorts).

• It addresses the ‘how’ and ‘where’ of accessing a web-based service

Client-Service Catalog Interaction

Client

Service Catalog

ServiceA

ServiceB

RegisterMe

Registry Acknowledge

PublishFindService

Service Description(WSDL)

Find

Invoke

serviceInvoke

service

Bind

What is UDDI?• A project to speed interoperability and

adoption for web services– Standards-based specifications for service

description and discovery– Shared operation of a business registry on the

web

• Partnership among industry and business leaders

• Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration

UDDI – a global business registry!

• Describes Businesses

• Their service offerings, and

• The means by which one can connect to a service

• Provides pointers to service type descriptions (e.g. access points or addresses of the service)

Registry Data

• Businesses register public informationabout themselves

• Standards bodies, Programmers, Businesses register information about their Service Types

WhitePages

YellowPages

GreenPages

Service TypeRegistrations

UDDI at Work

Harbour Metals createsonline website with local ASP

1.SydneyNet.com

Marketplaces and search enginesquery UBR, cache Harbour Metals data, and bind to its services

3. Consumers and businesses discover Harbour Metals and do business with it

4.

2.

ASP registersHarbour Metals with UBR

UDDI Registry

IBM

Ariba

Microsoftother

other

Registry Operation

• Peer nodes (websites)

• Companies registerwith any node

• Registrations replicatedon a daily basis

• Complete set of“registered” recordsavailable at all nodes

• Common set ofSOAP APIs supportedby all nodes

• Compliance enforced bybusiness contract

UDDI.org

queries

UDDI and SOAP

User UDDI

SOAP Request

UDDISOAP Response

UDDI RegistryNode

HTTPServer

SOAPProcessor

UDDIRegistry Service

B2B DirectoryCreate, View, Update, and Deleteregistrations Implementation-

neutral

Limitations of UDDI

• Data content is only inferred by associating a taxonomy value with a service offering, thus one service can be generally classified for browse or search

• Relationship between the service instance information and data catalogs still needs to be resolved

What’s Coming

Geospatial initiatives, standards, and specs on the horizon

ISO 19100 Series Specification Name

Description

ISO 19104 - Terminology

This document gives definitions for harmonized terms used within the 19100 family of standards.

ISO 19109 - Rules for application schema

The use of a formal application schema for representing geographic information will enable the development of physical implementations and data interchange facilities.

ISO 19110 – Feature Cataloguing Methodology

A framework for organizing and reporting the classification of real world phenomena in a set of geographic data. The feature catalogue for a given dataset is included or referenced in its metadata.

Additional 19100 Series Specification Name

Description

ISO TR19121 – Imagery and gridded data

Identifies those aspects of imagery and gridded data that have been standardized or are being standardized in other ISO committees and external standards organizations

ISO 19123 – Schema for coverage geometry and functions

Defines a conceptual schema for the spatial characteristics of coverages. Coverages include rasters, triangulated irregular networks, point coverages, and polygon coverages.

ISO 19127 - 127 - Geodetic codes and parameters

Defines rules for populating tables of geodetic codes and parameters and identifies the data elements required within these tables, consistent with the conceptual schema in ISO 19111.

OGC Specs as ISO Standards

• ISO 19125 - Simple feature access – Part 1-3ISO 19125 - Simple feature access – Part 1-3• ISO 19128 - Web Map Server InterfaceISO 19128 - Web Map Server Interface• ISO 19129 - Imagery, gridded and coverage dataISO 19129 - Imagery, gridded and coverage data

frameworkframework• ISO 19130 - Sensor and data model for imageryISO 19130 - Sensor and data model for imagery

and gridded dataand gridded data• ISO 19134 - Multimodal location based servicesISO 19134 - Multimodal location based services

for routing and navigationfor routing and navigation• ISO 19136 – Geography Markup Language (GML)ISO 19136 – Geography Markup Language (GML)

W3C Work Items

• XML Protocol – successor to SOAP

• Internationalization I18N

• Resource Description Framework – RDF

• XML Signature

OGC Coming Specifications

Spec Name DescriptionWeb Coverage Service

Extends the Web Map Server (WMS) interface to allow access to geospatial "coverages" that represent values or properties of geographic locations, rather than WMS generated maps (pictures).

Web Terrain Service

The purpose of the Web Terrain Server (WTS) is to produce perspective views of georeferenced data – typically 3-dimensional coverages.

XML for Image and map Annotation (XIMA)

Defines an XML vocabulary to encode annotations on imagery, maps, and other geospatial data. This vocabulary draws on the Geography Markup Language (OpenGIS® GML Recommendation Paper, Revision 2.0.)

Interoperability Program Reports

• OGC members request research and documentation on the resolution of specific issues known as IPRs

• IPRs may result in a new specification, no specification, or a change proposal

• More deliberate process involving the test bed partners

How do we really deploy geo-standards?

Design, Collaborate, Implement

Making standards work for you

• A “standard” is a published way of conducting business; an agreement by which multiple parties can better interact

• There are literally many standards to chose from, and you don’t have to use them all

• Just don’t invent a new methodology if a suitable, supported standard exists!

Flavors of Standards• Standards are both the category and solution• Specifications usually include a subset of instructions to

construct and test a conformant solution• Profile is a constrained specification that is scoped for a

specific purpose or environment• Guidelines usually dictate a general approach or

methodology for consistency in a community• Recommendations denote approval but may behave like

specifications• Technical Reports and IPRs document research into an

area of discourse but usually not a solution• Discussion Papers only provide information for comment

and consideration (not standards)

Where are standards made?• Formal accredited standards bodies

– International Bodies (ISO, IEC, ITU)– National bodies (Standards Australia)– Accredited bodies (ASTM, NISO)

• Industry/community consortia– OpenGIS Consortium– World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)– Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

• Autocracy or monopoly – Adobe PDF– Microsoft Word

How are standards made?

Scoped Problem

Scoped Problem

InputInput

PossibleSolutions

ExistingStandard?

Y

Will itwork?

Tellothers

Y

NN

InputInput

ExperimentationDocumentationInputInput

Review/ReviseInputInput

PublishTellothers

Implementation

CommunityReference

Model

Traditional Process

How are standards made?

Scoped Problem

Scoped Problem

InputInput

PossibleSolutions

ExistingStandard?

Y

Will itwork?

Tellothers

Y

NN

InputInput

ExperimentationDocumentationInputInput

Review/ReviseInputInput

PublishTellothers

Implementation

CommunityReference

Model

Testbed Process

Formal Standards Bodies• International and National standards

organizations rely on voluntary contributions of intellect and time to work out broad agreements

• Approval process very formal• Each nation is a member of ISO, nations

typically nationalize ISO standards• Each nation may accredit other

organizations to build standards under their name

Industry/Community Consortia

• Participation in broad technical organizations such as W3C and OGC should be considered by primary stakeholders

• Two-way representation by community brokers (e.g. FGDC) on consortia improves buy-in, common interests, information dissemination

• Results of consortia may have more industry impact than other standards organizations

Rapid Development Process• OGC (and W3C) use a validated process to

build specifications from an intersection of community practice, tested by prototyping, then documented as a specification– OGC Testbed: Experimental research and prototype

environment– OGC Pilot: On-the-ground deployment of integrated

specifications

• Advantages:– Prototyping leads to more rapid implementation– Industrial consensus worked out in advance

Standards are monolithic yet interdependent

XMLdeployed as

ISOSpatial

Schema

harmonized with

HTTP

used fortransport

GML3.0

may returnWFS1.0

XMLSchema

validates against

validates

UML

expressed in

transformable to

Community Coordination

• Because standards are written independently, the specific usage of certain standards or specifications in a community still needs to be defined

• A Reference Model is suggested to elaborate on the expected dependencies and interrelations within your community

• The U.S., Canada, and Europe are building standards-based reference models that define the terms of interoperability

Reference Implementations• Within a community, standards-based

software may be commissioned or identified to provide a trusted level of entry-level functionality– Software may be free or low-cost within the

identified community– Should exhibit well-known behaviors for

testing of other software– Provides a jump point for development of

commercial and compatible solutions

Commercialization

• To assure rapid uptake and integration of selected standards and specifications, there must be integrated vendor support of the standards– Works in the familiar desktop environment– Permits coupling of distributed systems– Allows access to remote information without need of a

browser

• Let your vendors know of your interest in standards through the Reference Model

Applying standards in Spatial Data Infrastructures

Overview of selected national projects from the US, Canada,

and Europe

Elements of Success

• Operational community commons

• Funding for outreach, education, implementation support

• $5-10 million directly spent annually in US and Canada for coordination, common services deployment, capacity building, small business assistance

SDI Examples

• US Geospatial One-Stop

• Canada GeoConnections

• Geographic Information for Sustainable Development

• UK MasterMap

US Geospatial One-Stop• 1 of 24 e-government initiatives defined by the

Office of Management and Budget to focus on government-to-government geospatial information usage

• Identify existing and planned Framework data assets

• Define rigorous data models and encoding for the seven themes

• Establish web data and mapping services• Create an integrative portal for applications and

human usage

Problem Statement• Existing FGDC data content standards varied in

their approach, detail, scope, modeling methodology and organization

• Existing standards tend to provide only general content guidance at a conceptual level; data content cannot be objectively tested against an abstract model

• Where data encoding (interchange format) for each theme was not defined as part of the standard, there is little potential for interoperable exchange of Framework data without negotiation

Where we want to be• Applications and users are able to discover and

use maps or data served and maintained by a reliable custodian, in real-time over the Web

• The format and structure of the information for a given theme from all providers can appear the same to all customers

• Content and encoding requirements are simple yet useful enough that many providers adopt and serve compliant Framework data

• Data and map services are authoritative, reliable, and are referenced by many customers instead of setting up duplicate services elsewhere

Past and Future

• human request handling

• ftp data access

• web discovery and order

• documentation of local content models

• use of proprietary formats

• little adherence to enforceable standards

• data translation largely the responsibility of the customer

Providers ofTheme X

customer

• automated ad-hoc requests• data and mapping via web services• web discovery, portrayal, and order or access• support of common content models and extended models• support of neutral encoding methods• data packages can be validated against a common reference• data translation shared between provider and customer

Providers ofTheme X

middlewarecommon packaging

services

customer

ReviewState and

E-Gov UserRequirements

Target 22+e-gov initiativesand other e-gov

Face-to-faceTown Hall

Discussions

Call for businessrequirements of

portal

Developconsolidateduse cases

Compose/convene7 MATs

Extract datarequirements

Who?To whom?

When?How?

PublishAnnouncements

on Process

Who?To whom?

When?How?

Initial PortalFunctional

Design

Calls for requirements and participation

Extract commondata

requirements

ConstructDraft Model

Write draftstd docs

ConstructDraft

Standard

PublicReview

Under ANSI INCITS L1

Vote at ANSI INCITS

L1

Vote at ANSI

PublicReview

FGDC Endorsement

revise

revise

e.g. transportation

Prototypespecific

G2G functions

Establishportal interface

to services

Prototypemap/dataservices

Finalizemap/dataservices

refine

Documentexisting andplanned data

Service andData

Clearinghouse

Augmentportal

functionalityrefine

Draft process diagramof Geospatial OneStop

3/01/02

register

time (not to scale)

PrepareQuestions,Organize

Portal Team

Requirements Team

Standards Teams

What is the Geospatial One-Stop Portal?

• Middleware that integrates access to distributed community data services

• Community-wide access point for all participating data and map services

• Employs standard software interfaces to connect to catalog, map, and feature services set up by providers

• Generic user interface that could be adapted by other communities

Portal Concepts

ClientsWFS WMS WCS CatGazGNIS

Internet

@FGDC

Internet

Geospatial One-Stop PortalUser Interface Widgets

Analysis Symbols Help

Web Browser (Thin Client) Applications (Thick Client)

Services

Provider Organizations

Data

Features of a Common Portal• Framework data services via:

– OGC Web Feature Service (WFS) using common schemas

– OGC Web Map Service using Style Layer Descriptors for symbolization

– OGC Web Coverage Service for continuous data– Data download as archived files (ftp/http)

• Supportive Services– Gazetteer Service for placenames as specialized

WFS– Catalog Services (Clearinghouse) for integrated

data and service discovery

Framework Interoperability Pilot for Transportation

• OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) is assisting in modeling process to define proper UML that conforms to ISO rules and can be implemented as GML

• Contract with OGC members to implement Web Feature Services to extend multiple available data systems (U.S. and Canada)

• Implement a Web client that can display and query multiple Framework data sources based on the common data model

• Approach to be followed for other themes

GeoConnections’ Objectives1. Increase the amount of geospatial data,

information and services available on-line;2. Ease data integration issues and data

standardization;3. Expand the use and application of geo-

info4. Promote the development of innovative

technology;5. Simplify the conditions for geo-info use

and resale.

Key Principles/Technical thrusts

• client centered access to information and services

• developed using common national frameworks

• based on international standards,• sustained through collaborative cost-efficient

partnerships, and• provided seamlessly to users in a supportive

policy environment

Distributed Applications, Data, Services

CGDI will enable distributed CGDI will enable distributed applications, applications,

CGDICGDI

.

Applications

Applications

Applications

Applications

Data

Data

Data

Data

Services

Services

Services

Services

Data and Services

Global ParticipationCGDI will join with other National SDIs to form a global SDICGDI will join with other National SDIs to form a global SDI

CGDICGDIU.S.NSDI

AustralianSDI

GlobalGlobalSDISDI

EuropeanGII

OtherSDI

Canadian information providers will have access to global marketsCanadian information providers will have access to global markets

.

CGDI Endorsed Services and Specifications

• Geodata Discovery Service(OGC Catalogue service, Z39.50 profile)

• ISO Metadata Standard(ISO 19115 DIS)

• Web Map Service(OGC WMS)

• Web Feature Service(OGC WFS)

• Geographic Markup Language(OGC GML)

From plans to reality

• From Architecture to Infrastructure– http://www.geoconnections.org/architecture– Cgdi-dev.geoconnections.org

• WMS, WFS, WCS, GML Tools, Registries

– Operational Implementations• Discovery• Map Servers

Architecture

Pre-operational implementations

Operational Infrastructure

GISD Initial Capability Pilot

(GISD-ICP)

Open GIS Consortium, Inc.

Sponsors and OGC Partners• Sponsors

– US Department of State– US Agency for International Development– US Federal Geographic Data Committee– Natural Resources Canada

• Partners– Advanced Technology Solutions (USA)– CubeWerx, Inc. (Canada)– ESRI (USA)– Federal Graphic Data Committee (USA)– Intergraph (USA)– Ionic Software (Belgium)– Laser Scan, Inc. (USA)

Goals

• Further the value of GI to SD by building / improving an interoperable infrastructure framework on the African continent– Form a public and private partnership to focus

both sectors on the issues– Create a working, expandable system based on

Standards Based Commercial Off the Shelf Software (SCOTS)

Method

• Engage the Open GIS Consortium, Inc. (OGC), to rally its 230 members of the industry around the cause– OGC is not-for-profit industry trade association

• Build a framework of existing data resources and enable the real-time sharing and use of those data– Uses “interfaces” designed by OGC– Uses “software” from industry, government,

shareware, open source worlds

Before OGC Interfaces

With OGC Interfaces

Seconds to Minutes,insteadof days

Up to datedata

Get exactly what you want, not an entire continent

Vendorneutral

Formatneutral

Our Phase One

AfricanPartners:

More to come in

the future

Multiviewer/Gateway

• Support for javascript in all browsers must be verified

• Proper processing of OGC Map requests needs to be assured

• Soon to disseminate guidance to Catalog (metadata providers) on how to set up their map services and proper metadata link contents

OS MasterMap™ provides...

• A seamless database reflecting the real world, with polygons representing man-made and natural features.

• Improved attribution, for more versatile classification of features, more intelligent data and better analysis.

• An on-line selection, quotation and delivery service to supply your data faster and more efficiently.

• Topographic Identifiers (TOIDs) to attach data which can be exchanged and shared between government departments and businesses.

Inte

llig

en

t Intelligent data ...

Topo96 Landline OS MasterMap Topo.Data restructureQuality improvementSpatial indexing

•Database of over 400 million unique topographic objects

Inte

llig

en

t Themes

Land

Buildings

Roads, tracks and paths

Rail

Structures

Water

Admin. Boundaries

Terrain and height

Heritage and antiquites

Defin

itiv

eObject attributes ...

Seamless

Acc

ess

ible

Acc

ess

ibleOS MasterMap™ first release

Acc

ess

ibleOS MasterMap™ & GML

• Supply format - GMLv2 only

• “Chunked” into managable file sizes

• Compressed using gzip

• Initial data supply via FTP or DVD

• Change only update via FTP only

Recommendations

Where to play• Stay involved via liaison to Standards

Australia and to ISO. If you have expertise, contribute it!

• Contribute your problems and experience to the OGC spec process where you can

• Establish multi-participant, multi-problem pilot projects to test integration of specs as a first step in defining a Reference Model

• Organize your community

Data Content Standards

• Specify semantics and syntax for information exchange for a specific theme of data

• May define core or comprehensive “packaging” of spatial data

• May be expressed as an ISO Application Schema

• Supports usage in OGC interfaces

Interoperability based on a common data model for data exchange

MissionSystem 1

MissionSystem 3

MissionSystem 2

APIexport

import

API

export

import

API

CoreFrameworkEncoding

CommonContentModel

Common Elements

• Feature types (classes) included• Unique feature identifier system• Basic attributes• Controlled vocabulary, codes,

authorities• Valid at a range of scales and

resolutions• Multiple representations of same

features possible

Establish WFS on agreed content nationwide

MissionSystem AWeb Feature

Browser/Client Application

MissionSystem B

Native FormatGML

(XML)

WFS

WFS

translationutilities

BprivateschemaPpublic

schematransformation

rules

Geographic Location Gazetteer

• Names of geographic places should be identifiable with unique IDs for easy reference and usage– First-order Subdivision (Province)– Second-order Subdivision (District)– Populated places– Named landscape features

• Establishment of online gazetteer by each nation is a useful service

Geographic Name Resolution (OGC Gazetteer Profile of WFS)• Online service protocol is being

developed to query geographic name servers to assist in relevant place name and coordinate assignment

• Metadata collection (cataloguing) can benefit from access to Web service to encode place as name and coordinates

• Geospatial search will benefit from stronger match of place to coordinates

Gazetteer Interaction

Web-basedapplicationWeb-basedapplication

User

Place Name and Context

Request may include ambiguous place type and name or coordinate

Structure

Response should include context but must include spatial coordinates

Gazetteer Service

Geodetic Reference Systems

• Selecting and conforming to a national or trans-national horizontal and vertical datum

• Many new systems consistent with geoid-based solutions (useful with GPS)

• Ability to also report data in geographic (latitude, longitude, decimal degrees) helpful in regional-global analysis

Feature Type Catalogs

• Development of national online catalog for “well-known” classes of features and attributes:– Definition– Authority– Relationships

• ISO has feature cataloguing methodology to assist in solution

National Information Profiles of International Standards

• ISO standards are typically adopted by national members as National Profiles

• Profiles permit clarification, localization, and extension of ISO content

• Coordination or common adoption of multi-national profiles is desirable

Examples of Profiles

• Metadata

• Feature Catalogue

• Application Schemas

Data Access Policies and Laws

• Review existing Information Technology legislation and policies

• Establish data exchange policies

• Address privacy, intellectual property, and security issues

• Define terms of participation in national SDI environment

Australian Advantages• Small community in which most players know

each other (and all States can sit around a table and engage with New Zealand!)

• Technically advanced geospatial IT sector with early adopters/implementers of OGC technology

• “No worries” spirit in consensus-building

Thank you so much for the opportunity to visit and share these ideas!

Standards in Australia

Status and overview of current SDI related activities

Examples • ICSM’s Harmonised Data Model (Integratability) currently includes:

– Cadastre– Topographic– Place names– Street address

• Can have new themes, classes and attributes added to it over time;• The “Client” is PSMA who are operationalising the HDM;• HDM uses the following ISO standards:

– 19103 Conceptual schema language– 19107 Spatial schema– 19108 Temporal schema– 19109 Rules for application schema

• Will have 19110 (Feature Cataloguing methodology) added; • ACT Urban Services and PSMA = reference implementations

Examples

• (Draft) ANZLIC Metadata Profile (based on ISO 19115 Metadata)

• Provides a recommended minimum set for the majority of spatial projects

• Comments on the draft are currently being reviewed

Examples ASDD (based on OGC Catalog Services

Version 1.0 and 1.1 and ISO 23950 "Information Retrieval” Z39.50)

Examples Encoding standard ISO 19118 (Encoding)

and GML 3 (GML 3 already ISO compliant) are being integrated

Examples Registries. ISO 19135 (Procedures for

registration of geographical information items). Looking at semantics, terminology and spatial schema. Should be at DIS by mid 2003. Andrew Jones on the WG

Conclusions

• Standards are only useful if they reduce work, increase consistency and enable easier sharing of information over the medium – long term.

• There may be some short-term “pain” to implement them (ie. change from existing approaches), but it should be in everyone’s benefit in the longer term to move towards adoption.

Conclusions

• By getting involved with the specification and standards setting agendas (both internationally and at home), agencies can influence what specifications and standards are worked up to formal release and adoption stages – also provides early warning radar in order to allow agencies to prepare for change.

Conclusions

• Standards ideally need to be considered within an over-arching framework (such as a national SDI or a B2B web services model) rather than as stand-alone abstract items.

Conclusions

• The work of ISO, OGC and WWWC in particular is very closely dovetailed together and groups such as FGDC, ANZLIC, ICSM, Standards Australia/NZ, NOIE etc. are there to help promulgate the standards and encourage reference implementations to be developed.

Conclusions

• The meshing together of supporting standards allows new paradigms to be operationalised, such as interoperability, location-based services, download and real-time views from remote sensors etc.

Conclusions

• Standards/ specifications need to be developed through operational testbeds and pilots to retain real-world relevance and applications;

Conclusions

• Adopted standards need to be reinforced by minimum barrier to entry reference implementations (an FGDC approach).

Conclusions

• Australia is in a strong situation to be earlier adopters of the new ISO 191** and OGC suite of standards through our existing jurisdictional coordination mechanisms and government industry partnerships - close links between ASIBA and ANZLIC/ ICSM/ PSMA etc.

Conclusions

• Standards really only become mainstream when COTS products are developed by the vendors in their commercial products and we need to work with the vendors to ensure such products become increasingly available.

Conclusions

• The ASDI Distribution Network can be delivered through a standards-based approach after a collective agreement on what standards underpin the functionality required.

Thanks go to:

600

400 Map Pane

Map controls

• counties• quadrangles• watersheds• user-defined polygon

SelectedFeature list

Capture PlacesCapture Places ClearClear

OGC WMS

• Identities/URLs of OGC WMS and WFS set as applet arguments• Coordinate system assumed to be EPSG:4326 (geo decimal degrees)• Output as structured variables for use in other programs• Styling of GML at programmer’s discretion• Returned feature structures include ID, name, and geometry

OGC WFS

FeatureStructures

Date post:	12-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	julius-howard-logan
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Geospatial Standards in Action A National Workshop Series Presented by Doug Nebert, FGDC...

Documents