FIG Standards Network
![](http://w.fig.net/organisation/networks/standards_network/images/standards_index.jpg)
|
REPORT ON THE ISO TC211 MEETINGS, LISBON, MARCH
2001
1. Overview
The meetings came at what might be portrayed as a milestone in the life of
TC211. Most of the original standards work items are now at the stages (DIS and
beyond) where the TC has no real input. This is allowing a clearer focus on the
next tranche of work (both that in train and that needed), on organising to
deliver that work to best effect, and on promoting the awareness and use of the
developing standards. A key element here is that the original standards were
around models; what is needed now is the next level of detail, allowing the
models to be implemented in a consistent manner across datasets, organisations
and countries. The meeting made good progress on a number of fronts.
2. Workshop on Standards in Action
This all-day event on Wednesday 7 March consisted of presentations from
upwards of a dozen countries who are involved in different testing/ conformance/
publicising activity around the TC211 standards. These activities are also
allowing some feedback on the standards. In summary, key points were:
- Canada - a web-site is live and running (address not advised) which shows
what can be done in pulling different datasets together in real time, as long
as they all comply with TC211 standards. They have put a lot of work into
this, with an environmental focus (given the amount of land and sea wilderness
that Canada is responsible for managing).
- South Africa - building on the National Spatial Information Framework,
they are building a national metadata service. They are also producing a
report explaining the standards set and what it means for the industry and
practitioners. In addition, a South African feature catalogue is being
developed as a basis for data exchange.
- Germany - the ALKIS and ATKIS projects (www.atkis.de)
bring together disparate land and topographic datasets from the different
Lander and facilitate interoperability and distribution via the Internet.
About 50% of the TC211 standards are now being used. Some difficulties were
reported with regard to some of the standards not yet having reached
stability.
- Japan - are in the process of merging multiple datasets and exchanging
update information; they have already converted a variety of datasets into
standardised datasets. A particular driver is being able to use all available
data in case of a disaster.
- Australia - they are using the standards to facilitate the sharing of data
across state boundaries (the cadastre is state-based). A common data
dictionary was created in 1997 but was little used. TC211 standards now seem
set to take over this role. The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure is also
expanding standardisation beyond land information. A key lesson is the need to
develop things holistically, rather than seeing data models, feature
catalogues etc as separate things.
- Portugal - demonstrated a substantial amount of work they have done on
inspection and testing, building from the TC211 standards and creating
automated testing routines.
- Switzerland - things were flagging a bit by mid-afternoon, so the Swiss
had thoughtfully brought in a mime artist to enliven the proceedings! Again,
they have a federal set-up and a need to share data. They demonstrated
INTERLIS, a system which allows data to be transferred between different GIS
packages by making use of TC211 standards. In this way, users can each stick
with the system that suits them best whilst ensuring that the data is still
interoperable with other data.
- China - I missed this presentation!!
- USA - discussed the FGDC work on metadata standards. The FGDC document is
freely available over the web, and over 100,000 copies have been downloaded in
the last two years. This raises issues over the pricing policy for ISO
standards. After all, widespread use is the aim of the standardisation
process.
- Belgium - demonstrated different datasets from different sources and
collected for different purposes being brought together in real-time over the
web. This included using the NIMA gazetteer - which has millions of entries -
for site-centring data extracts.
- Nordic countries - described the use of testbeds, in particular mixing
Norwegian and Finnish national mapping agency data from very different GIS
packages. Some particular problems with inconsistencies within the TC211
standards were mentioned.
- Russia - described the development of national standards to provide the
next level of detail beneath the TC211 documents.
The key themes that kept coming through were:
- The enormous economic benefits of being able to pull data from different
sources and for it to fit together;
- The need for stability in the standards; and
- The need for easy access to the standards - whether through OGC software
that companies buy, or in other ways.
It was great to see so much happening, but the talks demonstrated a clear
need for a greater overall framework for the different tests, so that the whole
can become greater than the sum of the parts. This is planned, with the TC211
secretariat managing an open register. The presentations will all be available
via the TC211 web site.
3. TC211 Plenary
Key general issues in the meeting were as follows:
- Most of the original batch of standards have now reached Draft
International Standard (DIS) stage or beyond, meaning that it is largely
processing for them to be published as International Standards. Indeed, ISO
19105 on Conformance and Testing has just been published as an international
standard. More than 10 others are due for final publication this year. The
reaching of DIS marks the stage where the standard has stabilised and can be
used as a basis for conformance.
- The appropriate structure for TC211 needs to be reviewed in light the
completion of much of this initial work. A meeting of the advisory group on
strategy in early June 2001 will consider the most appropriate structure -
there are various possibilities within the ISO directives.
- I pushed hard on the need for more coherence in the promotion of the
standards, and what they mean: I said that FIG was keen to help but was
struggling to see where to do this most usefully. This will also be picked at
the strategy group meeting in June.
- As the work of TC211 comes to the next level down from the general models,
the need for 'registries' comes into the picture - a way of registering
software, datasets or whatever that have been tested and found to conform to
the standards. OGC is of course a key player in this and their report showed
that a good number of commercial GIS products from a variety of manufacturers
have been confirmed as conforming, with many more being tested at the moment.
They have also ditched the OGC standards in favour of the TC211 documents. But
software won't pick everything up. One of the current work items, for instance
- 19127 - is looking at geodetic codes and parameters and seeking to create a
registry of these, with all systems described in a common manner. Quite which
group within TC211 will take a lead on the registries work looks like being a
bit of a turf battle. An important decision was that the framework for
registries will not be in 19106 on Profiles but will be a new standard.
- TC211 is starting to look at new areas as it clears older items from its
work programme. Much of this is driven by commercial needs, through OGC and
others - web interfaces for geographic information, and standards for location
based services, are key areas being considered. This will include taking
further OGC documents and refining them - OGC see themselves as forging
material for further polishing by ISO. TC211 will also be taking over the
standard - ISO 6709 - on the ways of defining latitude, longitude and time.
There is some tension with other ISO TCs about the scope of TC211, in
particular where it touches on (or possibly overlaps) other work.
- The lack of clarity about structures and work in the future led to some
lack of clarity in debate. A concern that some individuals are holding a
substantial number of different roles in and around the TC also came through
here.
- Showing the reach of the TC211 activity, the Global Spatial Data
Infrastructure (GSDI) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
were accepted as liaisons.
- The next meeting of the TC will be in Adelaide in late October, and will
include another workshop on standards in action. The following meeting will be
in Bangkok in April/ May 2002.
4. Certification and Qualification of Personnel
The project team met just before the Lisbon plenary. Only 3 people attended -
Bob Maher from Canada (the project leader), Hans Knoop from Germany (de facto
deputy project leader) and Tony Pharaoh from IHB. Canada has made clear that it
will not fund the work for much longer. However, it wants to see a decent report
produced, and so made a plea for further case studies to complement the Canadian
one in the current draft report. Several countries - Thailand, Switzerland,
Russia and South Africa in particular - agreed to try to produce case studies.
Many countries have in the past promised information, only to fail to deliver
(and the responses to the questionnaire were very sparse, meaning that they
could not be used for analysis). There was agreement that the end date of
December 2001 for the final report should be met.
I pointed out the narrowness of the work, compared to FIG meetings on the
subject which attract in excess of 100 people. I was asked why I thought this
was - I stressed that the professional bodies were turned off by the original
proposal for a standard (later changed to a proposal for a technical report),
and that this tension was continuing to get in the way. In addition, it was
getting in the way of professional bodies understanding and promoting the other
work of TC211 - the committee is mainly seen by many as a body trying to
standardise qualifications and certification.
I made a plea for a proper discussion after the report was published, to
ensure that there was agreement between all parties of the work that needed to
be done and who should do it. There is no denying, after all, that the TC211
initiative may have forced the issue higher up professional bodies' agendas. I
suggested that the FIG Congress in April 2002 could be at about the right time
for a round-table discussion, with the TC211 report published and the FIG Task
Force's report submitted to that Congress.
Several delegations supported my comments in private, and Korea supported
them from the floor of the plenary.
The upshot is that the report will be completed, case studies or no, later
this year, and there seems to be strong majority of active TC211 countries
wanting to pause and take stock at that stage. This will be supported by the new
TC211 procedure of distributing work item proposals for comment before moving to
vote.
In light of the above, I agreed with Hans Knoop that FIG has no objection to
a TC211 meeting on certification being held in Seoul, but that it must be badged
as a TC211 event, with invitations from TC211 and not from FIG. Hans Knoop will
liaise with the FIG Office on this.
5. FIG Statement on the Cadastre
This was on the agenda because of the ISO Technical Management Board's
decision not to fast-track the Statement towards a standard, and to refer the
matter to the Joint Steering Group for spatial standardisation and related
interoperability. This group is an internal ISO liaison body chaired by Olaf
Ostensen (the Chair of TC211).
I was able to give some background as to what had happened to date - many
countries first knew of the Statement when a ballot was called by ISO in Geneva,
and the lack of prior information caused some friction. I explained that this
was not our intention - rather, we felt we had something that would assist the
standardisation process, in a very important area for future economic
development, and were seeking how to make best use of it.
I was asked to consider how TC211 might be able to assist with this (and
other FIG documents) and to come back to TC211. I will therefore hold some
discussion in and around the FIG Working Week in Seoul.
6. Other FIG-related matters
The following issues have particular relevance to FIG:
- In my liaison report, I pushed the promotion/ marketing side of things. I
repeated that FIG is willing to help, and cited the planned papers and seminar
in Seoul, with further possibilities in Washington (although I stressed that
the programme would be put together in outline in the next 3-6 months, so I
needed to know soon). The TC211 strategy group meeting in Nashua, New
Hampshire on 7-8 June 2001 will consider communication more (the business plan
is currently very light in this area, and TC211 recognises this weakness), and
we should certainly submit ideas beforehand, and attend if possible (we are
almost certain to be invited).
- Julie Binder-Maitra, the Work Item leader of 19127 - Geodetic Codes and
Parameters - asked if FIG might be able to help in her work. I said I was sure
that we could - through Commission 5 in particular - and asked her to be more
specific about her needs by 30 April, so that I could raise the issue with
Commission 5 in Seoul.
- GSDI has a 'cook book' on its website (www.gsdi.org)
which might also be published in paper form. Their representative wondered
whether some FIG material might fit into this cookbook, including perhaps the
Statement of the Cadastre and Cadastre 2014. I said that I would have a look
and get back to them.
- The TC211 secretariat will shortly be reviewing working group membership.
This will include the FIG experts; I will review what the needs are and sort
out the right experts by the end of the Working Week in Seoul.
- I spoke with John Kim about the seminar on TC211 that he is planning in
Seoul. He will talk with the local organising committee and come back to
potential contributors.
- Now that TC211 is moving into the level below the models, and is preparing
for completion of many standards, it is vital that FIG reviews urgently what
existing FIG material could be consolidated into standards, and where FIG
could assist in creating explanatory material. This will be an important
element of my efforts in Seoul, but I will need Council assistance.
7. Other matters
Other issues mentioned in the plenary or corridors included:
- OGC has just produced the first edition of a newsletter to keep people
informed of its activities. It can be found at www.opengis.org. Further
editions will be produced, and you can register at the site for receipt of
these.
- The United Nations Working Group on Geographic Information had met in
Italy earlier in the week. Sessions included national mapping agencies, who
felt that they couldn't commit to many issues without prior consultation with
their national governments.
- Two CEN TC287 pre-standards are currently out for vote. A off-line meeting
of European representatives took place, at which I wore my Irish hat. The
outcome was that countries present felt it best to vote for a two-year
continuation of the documents, and during that time to move the ISO documents
into CEN standards through the Vienna convention. I promised to pass this
information back into the Irish standardisation body. There are, however, some
individuals in powerful positions who still see the TC287 standards as of
greater prominence than the TC211 standards. One of these appears to be the
standards adviser to the project to push SABE into Central Europe., I promised
to follow this issue up through EuroGeographics.
Ian Greenway
Email iain.greenway@btinternet.com
11 March 2001
|