Hi Martin, This is excellent thank you for taking the time. +1 for Martin Desruisseaux as VP OGC Relations :) Lewis
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:35 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:59:08 -0400 > Subject: Report from OGC meeting > Three weeks ago was hold an OGC meeting in Stuttgart (Germany). > Consolidated slides giving only the main points of each presentation is > available at [1]. Below are a few elements that I noted. As usual this > is only my understanding and may contain mistakes/approximations: > > > New working groups being formed: > > * Pipeline working group > * Statistical working group > * Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies working group > * Aviation (actually reviving a dormant working group) > * GeoAI (Artificial Intelligence) working group > > The Pipeline Working Group is proposed by the the oil and gas industry. > In this environment of highly volatile products under high pressure in > underground infrastructures difficult to access, their requirements on > international standards prefer rigidity over flexibility. This reminded > me Tim Boudreau's blog "Maven's inflexibility is its best feature" (from > the point of view of an IDE). > > The Statistical Domain Working Group will work on integration of > statistics and geospatial, use of metadata to link them, > disclosure/privacy issues, etc. On artificial intelligence (AI), an ISO > Technical Committee has been created in 2017: ISO/IEC JTC1 SC42, with > their first meeting in April 18 in Beijing (China). The OGC GeoAI > working group plans to coordinate their work with this ISO TC. IEEE is > launching an initiative for ethical considerations in AI. > > > New programmatic elements: > > The Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS) working group made a report on > their new features: dynamic datum, three-dimensional projected CRS, > geoid-based vertical CRS, triaxal ellipsoids for planetary applications, > etc. Those new features are not yet implemented in Apache SIS, while I > still hope to do that somewhere in 2019. The Moving Features Working > Group published a corrigenda introducing new elements - > MovingFeatureType and DynamicAttributeType - which fill a hole in > current editions of ISO standards on which GeoAPI interfaces are based. > This element has been used for completing the org.opengis.feature Java > package in GeoAPI. Not yet implemented in Apache SIS neither, but on the > radar. > > The GeoAPI working group took a look on the new C++ API of the PROJ > library, created as part of the "gdalbarn" crow-founding. The C++ API is > inspired by GeoAPI and follows closely ISO 19111:2018 model. It seems > close to what could be a "GeoAPI in C++" API. Other elements briefly > shown in the meeting was the tentative Python API (in addition of > current Java API) and the specification draft [2] (still work in progress). > > For drawing symbols on a map, we did not had formal definition of > programmatic elements that we could use in GeoAPI. The closest thing > that we had was XML schema of symbology encoding. OGC is now preparing a > Symbology Conceptual Model. The core part is available in draft stage at > [3] and seems better suited to GeoAPI. > > > New format, service or registry: > > The GeoPackage format may be extended to include "Common Data Base" > (CDB) vector data - a synthetic environment database for storing > computer simulation that represents activities at a high level of > realism. CDB were previously using Shapefiles. The move to GeoPackage > would allow to reduce the number of files and disk usage. > > The Web Feature Service (WFS) 3.0 draft is available at [4]. The first > release (tentatively next year) will not cover all WFS 2.0 > functionalities. WFS 2 and WFS 3 are expected to exist in parallel for > some time. Since WFS is also an ISO standard, WFS 3 will use a new ISO > number for avoiding to discard WFS 2. > > There is a need to allow other authorities (e.g Astronomical Union, > Oceanographers) to register new Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS), e.g. > for depth axes measured by pressure. We have not yet clarified what > would be the process for submitting new CRS to OGC. This is a recurring > demand. > > The concept of DataCube became popular recently, especially in the > context of Earth Observation. A DataCube can be understood as a > specialization of the Coverage structure defined by ISO 19123 in the > special case where data are gridded. The number of dimensions can be > anything, and DataCubes shall support efficient trimming and slicing. > Actually this is not really new. As far as Apache SIS is concerned for > example, there is nothing to change; it is already in-line with the > requirements enumerated at OGC. Those requirements are: > > * Shall support gridded data of between two to four spatial-temporal > dimensions. > * Uses the Geographic Coverage model as defined in OGC Coverage > Implementation Schema (CIS). > * Shall prepare and structure raw observation data to support analysis > with minimal additional preparation when analysis is requested. > * Shall provide metadata for the user that defines the provenance of > all source data, data preparation methods and structure. > * Shall support analytics on all domain axes alike, irrespective of > the axis spatial or temporal semantics. > * Shall allow efficient trimming and slicing along any number of axes > from a datacube in a single request. > * Shall allow tuning of performance to anticipated user query patterns. > * Shall provide server-side analytic processing on the data including > composite extraction, processing, filtering, and fusion tasks in > ad-hoc fashion. > * Shall support access to metadata. > > > Other new stuffs: > > In addition of standards, OGC was used to publish "Best practice" > documents which are not standards but describe some recommended uses of > standards. This category of document has been refined in two categories: > "Best practice" (as before) and "Community practice". The main > difference is that "Community practice" describe the use of de-factor > standards that originated outside OGC. > > The OGC Naming Authority is defining identifiers in the > http://www.opengis.net namespace. But this namespace is only for > formerly approved OGC resources. For resources under development, a new > namespace has been defined: http://dev.opengis.net. > > A data quality vocabulary is being developed at W3C [5]. It is not a > standard yet. > > > Tests > > Current beta version of CITE tests cover the following: > > * CSW 2.0.2 (current version: 1.18) > * GeoPackage 1.0 (current version: 1.1) > * GeoPackage 1.2 (current version: 0.7) > * SensorThings API 1.0 (current version: 1.2) > * WFS 2.0 (current version: 1.30) > * WMS 1.1 (current version: 1.18) > * SWE Common 2.0 (current version: 0.3) > * WMTS 1.0 NSG Profile (current version: 0.3) > * GeoPackage 1.2 NSG Profile (current version: 0.5) > * WMS 1.3 NSG Profile (current version: 0.2) > > > [1] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=81129 > [2] http://www.geoapi.org/snapshot/standard_document.html > [3] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=80686&version=1 > [4] > https://cdn.rawgit.com/opengeospatial/WFS_FES/3.0.0-draft.1/docs/17-069.html > [5] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ > >
