fgdc standards working group meeting tuesday, june 12, 2007 u. s. fish and wildlife service...

FGDC Standards Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arlington, VA

Topics

• FGDC endorsement of standards from the ISO 19100 series of geographic information standards

• Status of Framework Data Standard • Review of FGDC standards program of work • Development of procedures for withdrawing standards from the

FGDC standards program of work • Public review CLOSED Friday, June 8

– draft National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2.0– draft National Shoreline Data Content Standard – CLOSED

• Development and approval of Mining Data Standard through ASTM International, with plans for subsequent endorsement by FGDC.

• Development of a database of ISO and ANSI/INCITS standards that provides users information about document pricing, rights, and normative references in one place.

FGDC endorsement of standards from the ISO 19100 series of geographic information standards

• Adopt standards from DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR)

• Use policy on FGDC recognition of non-Federally authored standards.

• Issues– Standards “architecture”?– How does the National Center for Geospatial

Intelligence Standards (NCGIS) decide what standards are registered in the DISR?

Status of Framework Data Standard

• ANSI-sponsored public review closed April 30, 2007

• ANSI editor returned comments on May 16– "Title Discrepancy and Strange Disclaimer“ being

reviewed by INCITS legal counsel– He writes, “Considering the number of standards

that make up this series, the number of editorial queries is small.”

• Once edits are completed, the Framework Data Standard will advance to INCITS Management Review

Comments on Framework Data Standard

1) The titles of all of the INCITS 436 standards refer to the series as "Framework Data Content Standard". The text of the standards frequently refers to the series as "Geographic Information Framework Data Content Standard". Are these two terms equivalent? Should we adjust the terminology in the text?

The second title is more descriptive of the content of the standard. Use that term.

BSR INCITS 436.1 (Cadastral) 2) The first sentence of the Scope, Purpose, and Application refers to this

part of the overall standard as "Part 5". Should we change it to "Part 1"?

Yes, change to "Part 1."


BSR INCITS 436.4 (Geodetic Control) 3) On the first page of the Introduction, there is a two-paragraph quote from

"FRAMEWORK - Introduction and Guide, National Spatial Data Infrastructure, FGDC, 1997 (p.18)". Did the committee receive the permission of the copyright holder to use this text verbatim? Is this permission on file at ANSI?

This document is a Federal document and does not carry a copyright. 4) Figure 1 is unclear. Can you provide an improved figure?

Refer to NGS: This diagram looks like it was copied from a PDF document. Please provide a new camera-ready diagram.

5) Both Table 1 and Table 2 end with bad breaks. A single word in the Data Type column appears at the top of each subsequent page. May we adjust the spacing and text to avoid these one-word breaks?

Yes.

Comments on Framework Data StandardBSR INCITS 436.6 (Hydrography)

6) Annex B, an informative annex, is titled "Design concepts and design requirements". In American National Standards, an informative annex is not considered part of the standard and should not include any requirements. Is there any other term that can be used?

The use of the term "requirements" in this section was to provide an informative context to how the standard was derived. These were requirements from the community that affected the content as proposed. To this end, we propose keeping the annex as Informative and adjusting the wording thereafter, hoping we caught all occurrences.

Line 635: Keep this as "Informative" and adjust wording to follow:

Line 636: Replace "Design concepts and design requirements" with "Designconcepts and functional context"

Line 638: Replace "requirements of" with "common usage in"

Line 649: Replace "Design requirements" with "Functional context"

Line 651: Replace "requirements" with "applications and the data thatsupport them"

Line 653: Replace "Design requirements" with "Application context"

Line 655: Replace "requirements" with "common needs"


BSR INCITS 436.7 (Transportation Base)

7) Annex B uses the text of Subclause 6.6 of ISO 19133:2005. Since ANSI is the US representative of the ISO, we will provide the necessary copyright permission.

Thank you.


BSR INCITS 436.7a (Air) 8) In Table 57, the first six definitions in the table show the following elevation difference accuracy

measurements: Name Measurement in Definition1stOrderClassI 0.5 mm/?(Km)1stOrderClassII 0.7mm/?(Km)2ndOrderClassI 1.0/?(Km)2ndOrderClassII 1.3/?(Km)3rdOrderNoTablet 2.0/?(Km)3rdOrderWithTablet 2.0/?(Km)

a) What is the purpose of the question marks? Should we remove them and replace them with kilometers, km?

Refer to Air MAT.

The accepted abbreviation of kilometers uses a lower-case "k". May we use km in these ratios?

Yes.

c) In the last four definitions, should we add in "mm" before the slash?

Refer to Air MAT, but adding "mm" would be consistent with the two definitions.


9) Table 78 has two columns and five rows, but no listings. Is this correct? Is text missing?

Refer to Air MAT 10) The following listings in Table 86 do not have descriptions: Matsmembranemetalpspsand For consistency, please provide the definitions of these terms (particularly,

the acronyms "mats" and "psp")

Refer to Air MAT


11) The following listings in Table 87 do not have descriptions: afscnaturaloiledpfcrfscRolled

For consistency, please provide the definitions of these terms.

Refer to Air MAT

12) What is the description for the term "GDS" in Table 95?

Refer to Air MAT


BSR INCITS 436.7b (Rail) 13) Tables 18 through 31 do not contain any definitions. This is

consistent within this one standard, but is inconsistent with tables in other standards in this series. Should this discrepancy be accepted for this standard alone, or will the committee be able to provide definitions for all these tables?

Refer to Mark Bradford: This part was referred to the standards development team for rail, but no one replied. This discrepancy should be accepted for this part alone.


BSR INCITS 436.7d (Transit)14) The start of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Scope

reads: "This part of the Federal Geographic Data Content Standard can be implemented ...". In all other standards in this series, this same paragraph in the Scopes begins: "This part of the Framework Data Content Standard can be implemented ...". Should we change the term in the sentence in 436.7d, for consistency?

See reply to Item 1, above. 15) In Table A.2, at the end of the Assumptions/Conditions column for

"Fare data (based on distance or zones, or flat)" [on page 55], the last sentence reads: "See section 0 for guidance on TCIP Fare Collection Fare Tables (NTCIP 1408)". There is no section 0 in this standard. What is the correct cross-reference?

The hyperlink in the PDF document refers to "A.5 Guidance on how to specify a fare table using TCIP standard on fare collection business objects (NTCIP 1408:2001)."

Review of FGDC standards program of work

Date Event Recommendatio

n

2006-03-27Review of Soils Geographic Data Standard, FGDC-

STD-006 Reissue

2006-04-27Review of National Vegetation Classification

Standard, FGDC-STD-005 Change

2006-05-11Review of Spatial Data Transfer Standard, Part 6:

Point Profile, FGDC-STD-002.6 Reissue

2006-05-11Review of Geospatial Positioning Accuracy

Standards, Part 1: Reporting Methodology, FGDC-STD-007.1-1998

Revise

2006-05-11Review of Geospatial Positioning Accuracy

Standards, Part 2: Standards for Geodetic Networks, FGDC-STD-007.2-1998

Revise

2006-07-11Review of Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FGDC-STD-004

Reissue

2006-12-22Review of Spatial Data Transfer Standard, Part 7:

CADD Profile, FGDC-STD-002.7Withdraw

Development of procedures for withdrawing standards from the FGDC standards program of work

• This has become an issue as the Framework Data Standard is approaching maturity

• Standards that have not yet been endorsed may be discontinued by request of SC/WG or other standards organization to the FGDC Standards Coordinator

• A more formal process, including public notification, needs to be developed to withdraw FGDC-endorsed standards

FGDC Public Review

• Closed Friday, June 8, 2007• Draft National Vegetation Classification

Standard, version 2.0– Technical Committee of the Canadian National

Vegetation Classification– USDA-NRCS East National Technology Support

Center– Minnesota DNR Central Region

• Draft National Shoreline Data Content Standard– Minerals Management Service

Mining Data Standard

• Being developed through ASTM International, with plans for subsequent FGDC endorsement

• Formerly known as American Society for Testing and Materials

• ANSI has accredited ASTM International to develop American National Standards

• In addition, ASTM International is an ANSI Audited Designator, which means that it has the authority to designate its standards as American National Standards, without approval by the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR), given its record of voluntary standards development.

Development of a database of ISO and ANSI/INCITS standards

• Provides users information about document pricing, rights, and normative references in one place.

• Elements– Dublin Core elements– Cost– Comment

• Currently, data entry in a spreadsheet• Future plans

– XML– RDF

Dublin Core

• Not Dublin, Ireland, but Dublin, Ohio!• The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set is a vocabulary

of properties for use in resource description, here, a description of a standards document

• ISO and FGDC metadata standards for geographic information contain Dublin Core elements, but provide greater specificity

• Plans– Spreadsheet data entry underway– Convert to XML– Convert to RDF for relationships among standards– Other ideas???

• For more information, see www.dublincore.org

http://www.dublincore.org/

Dublin Core Metadata Elements

• Contributor - An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.

• Coverage - The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.

• Creator - An entity primarily responsible for making the resource. • Date - A point or period of time associated with an event in the

lifecycle of the resource. • Description - An account of the resource. Used abstract.• Format - The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the

resource. Used “text,” from DCMI Type Vocabulary, http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/

• Identifier - An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context. Document number or URL?

• Publisher - An entity responsible for making the resource available.

Here I used Abstract

Dublin Core Metadata Elements

• Relation – A related resource. Here, URL for normative reference

• Rights - Information about rights held in and over the resource. Either URL or text for licensing agreement.

• Source - The resource from which the described resource is derived. Use URL for standard?

• Subject - The topic of the resource. • Title - A name given to the resource. • Type - The nature or genre of the resource. Used

“application/pdf” from IANA | MIME Media Types, http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

fgdc standards working group meeting tuesday, june 12, 2007 u. s. fish and wildlife service...

Documents