2015 Nottingham Pre-TC Briefing

8/20/2019 2015 Nottingham Pre-TC Briefing

1/58

®

Sponsored by

Upcoming TC Meeting Briefing

96th OGC Technical CommitteeNottingham, UK

OGC TC Meeting Team

30 July 2015

Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium


2/58

OGC

®

Agenda

New Member orientation (20 minutes)

Policies and Procedures Update (20 minutes)

Quick look back at previous TC Meeting (10 minutes)

Quick look forward to upcoming TC Meeting (10 minutes)

Upcoming Summit overview (10 minutes)



3/58

OGC

®

NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION



4/58

OGC

®

What is the OGC?



5/58

OGC

®

Commercial39%

Government27%

NGO8%

Research6%

University

20%

The Open Geospatial Consortium


Not-for-profit, international voluntary consensus standardsorganization; leading development of geospatial standards

Founded in 1994.

510+ members and growing

48 standards

Thousands of implementations

Broad user community

implementation worldwide

Alliances and collaborative activities

with ISO and many other SDO’s

Africa4

AsiaPacific

86

Europe209

MiddleEast

34

North America

182

South America

3


6/58

OGC

®

The OGC vision and mission


VISION: A world in which everyone benefits from the useof geospatial information and supporting technologies.

MISSION: To advance the development and use ofinternational standards and supporting services thatpromote geospatial interoperability. To accomplish this

mission, OGC serves as the global forum for the

collaboration of geospatial data / solution providers and

users.

Urban Model of Berlin based on OGC CityGML

Source: www.3d-stadtmodell-berlin.de


7/58

OGC

®

What is an OGC Standard?


A document, established by consensus andapproved by the OGC Membership, that provides

rules and guidelines, aimed at the optimum degree

of interoperability in a given context.

Community requirements

Member requirements

Market trends Technology trends

CityGML Levels of Detail


8/58

OGC

®

Five steps

1. Identify requirements

2. Form a Standards Working Group (SWG)

3. Create the Standard

4. Submit Standard for internal review and public comment

5.

OGC members vote to approve Standard



9/58

OGC

®

Metadata Service interfaces

Exchangeencodings

Processing services

Internationaldata sharing and

data services

SponsoredInteroperability

Experimentsand Testbeds

Defense

Environment Commerce Science

Etc.

1. Identify requirements


Operational needsfor data consistency

or presentation

Domain Working Group

®

Commercialbusiness

drivers


10/58

OGC

®

1a. Requirements from alliance partnerships


– Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

– Organization for the Advancement of StructuredInformation Standards (OASIS)

– National Emergency Number Association (NENA)

–

International Organization for Standards (ISO)

– World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

– World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

– IEEE Technical Committee 9 (Sensor Web)

– TM Forum

–

Open Grid Forum (OGF) – buildingSMART Alliance

– Web3D Consortium


11/58

OGC

®

1b. Other sources of requirements

Output from other OGC Standards activity

– Current merged efforts of OWS Context and GeoPackage

Existing encoding or service that owner would like to

submit to OGC for adoption

–

KML, proposed Common DataBase (CDB)

Abandoned work that needs a home

– LandXML >> InfraGML


CDB image courtesy of

David Graham, CAE, Inc.


12/58

OGC

®

2. Form a SWG

Write a charter (clear and precise guidance from OGC)

– Find at least 3 charter members

–

Demonstrate business case

Request Technical Committee (TC) to allow SWG to form


I said “SWG”

not “swig”


13/58

OGC

®

3. Create the Standard

Develop use cases

Identify dependencies

Work within OGC policy

Comply with OGC Abstract Specification and OGC Modular

Specification

Invite experts

Perform iterative internal and public reviews

Use collaboration tools!



14/58

OGC

®

4. Submit Standard for review

OGC review

– OGC Architecture Board check for compliance with Abstract and

Modular Specifications

– OGC Naming Authority for URIs

– OGC staff for adherence to policies and Standards template

Public review

– Fully-advertised public review of 30 days of draft Standard

– Public comments must be reviewed and either incorporated or

discarded with cause



15/58

OGC

®

5. Vote to approve

TC votes to recommend for adoption by PlanningCommittee (PC)

–

Standard must be presented to TC in a meeting

– TC must vote at that presentation to issue an electronic vote

–

45 day electronic vote with minimum thresholds for sufficiency andmajority (2/3 majority)

PC votes to adopt Standard

– If YES vote from TC, PC vote initiated

– 14 day vote via e-mail, simple majority



16/58

OGC

®

OGC Organization


Board of Directors and Executive StaffPresident and CEO

Mark Reichardt

Executive Director

Communications & Outreach

Denise McKenzie

Strategic MemberAdvisory Committee

Executive Director

Interoperability Pgm

Terry Idol

Communications &Outreach Program Regional

Services

InteroperabilityEngineering

Dir. Compliance &

E-Learning

Luis Bermudez

CTO & Chief Engineer

George Percivall

Executive Director

Standards Program

Scott SimmonsEuropean Services Director

Athina Trakas

Americas Services Director

Trevor Taylor

Asia Services Director

Trevor Taylor

Middle East

McKenzie / De Lathouwer

Planning

Committee

Technical

Committee &

Working Groups

Architecture Board

StandardsProgram

Global AdvisoryCouncil

India

M.K. Munshi


17/58

OGC

®

OGC’s Programs for Advancing Interoperability

Interoperability Program (IP) - a global,innovative, hands-on rapid prototyping and testingprogram designed to unite users and industry inaccelerating interface development and validation, andthe delivery of interoperability to the market.

Standards Development Program -Consensus standards process similar to other Industryconsortia (World Wide Web Consortium, OMA etc.).

Compliance Testing and CertificationProgram - allows organizations that implement anOGC standard to test their implementations with themandatory elements of that standard

Communications and Outreach Program -education and training, encourage take up of OGCspecifications, business development, communicationsprograms.

Rapid Interface

Development

Standards

Setting

Market

Adoption

Testing &

Certification



18/58

OGC

®

The Standards development program…

is where and how the OGC standards are processed andadopted and

Contains four primary operating units:

–

OGC Technical Committee (TC)

– OGC Architecture Board (OAB)

– OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA)

– OGC Planning Committee (PC)



19/58

OGC

®

The Technical Committee (TC)

Where the formal standards development consensusdiscussion and approval process occurs.

Comprised of a number of Domain Working Groups (DWGs,pronounced “dwigs”) and Standards Working Groups

(SWGs, pronounced “swigs”)

Work is guided by the TC Policies and Procedures


✓


20/58

OGC

®

Technical Committee meetings

Quarterly Meetings (N. America, Europe, Asia, Australasia) – June 2015 Boulder, Colorado, USA

– September 2015 Nottingham, UK

– December 2015 Sydney, Australia

– March 2016 Washington, DC, USA

Members can send representatives

– Meeting fees waived depending on membership level

Many sessions are virtual via web/teleconference

If you are a voting member, consider sending a proxy if youcannot attend a meeting

– Assign to OGC member, Technical Committee Chair as desired



21/58

OGC

®

Domain Working Groups (DWGs)


Where Members discuss technical requirements, usecases, and issues related to the development and revision

of OGC standards. The results of OGC interoperability

projects are presented and discussed. Many members

present on the use of OGC standards. – Any Member or invited guest can attend any DWG session.


22/58

OGC

®

DWGs as of March 2015



23/58

OGC

®

Standards Working Groups (SWGs)

Groups that work on a new (candidate) OGC standard orrevision to an existing OGC standard

Members and invited experts may participate

Guided by the OGC Policies and Procedures

OGC Intellectual Property policies in full effect

Usually work from 6 months to 18 months per deliverable



24/58

OGC

®

SWGs as of March 2015



25/58

OGC

®

Every DWG and SWG has a portal page


Go to https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&tab=3 and select the WG of interest


26/58

OGC

®

Other operating units in the Standards Program

OGC Architecture Board (OAB)

– Work with the TC and the PC to insure architecture consistency of

the Baseline and provide guidance to the OGC membership to

insure strong life cycle management of the OGC standards baseline

OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA)

– The OGC-NA controls the assignment of OGC Names to resourcesof interest in geographic information infrastructures. Part of any

OGC standards development process is to submit list of proposed

URIs to OGC-NA for review.

Planning Committee

–

The Planning Committee provides guidance and the management

structure for the Technical Committee and the Interoperability

Program



27/58

OGC

®

OGC guidance documents

Tao of the OGC

– a Guide to the Consensus Process of the Open Geospatial Consortium(OGC)

OGC Reference Model (ORM)

–

describes the OGC Standards Baseline focusing on relationships between

the baseline documents OGC Abstract Specification

– provides the conceptual foundation for most OGC specification

development activities

OGC Modular Specification

– contains requirements for writing standards to include a set of testable

constraints

TC Policies and Procedures

– provides descriptions of roles, responsibilities, standards development and

submission procedures, and procedures related to revisions of existingOGC standards



28/58

OGC

®

OGC member portal

The Portal is designed to assist OGC Staff and Members inthe management and conduct of all aspects of OGC related

activities. http://portal.opengeospatial.org



29/58

OGC

®

E-mail

The life-blood of the OGC

Every Working Group has an e-mail list.

An e-mail list can be Members only or public. Public listsrequire WG Member approval.

Any OGC Member in good standing can subscribe to anyOGC TC e-mail list.

Use the portal to subscribe as desired.



30/58

OGC

®

Two critical OGC lists

[email protected]

– Used for administrative, meeting, document review, calls for

participation, and voting announcements

– Moderated

– Mostly OGC staff posts to this email list

[email protected]

– For technical discussions

– Any member subscribed can post

–

Moderated



31/58

OGC

®

OGC wikis

Any OGC Working Group can request a wiki. Just need to let OGC staff know Wikis can be Members only or also publicly accessible. Need Member approval

to have a wiki public.



32/58

OGC

®

OGC Position documents

OGC Standard

– Implementation Standard (IS): A document containing an OGC consensusapproved technology dependent (e.g , http) specification for interfaces,

encodings, and related specifications based on the Abstract Specification.

Testable.

– Abstract Specification (AS): A document (or set of documents) containing

an OGC (and in numerous cases ISO) consensus on a technology

independent model that describes an application environment forinteroperable geoprocessing and geospatial data and services products.

Each document is referred to as a “topic.”

OGC Best Practice

– A document containing discussion of best practices related to the use and/

or implementation of an adopted OGC standard or related technology and

for release to the public. Best Practices Papers are the official position ofthe OGC and thus represent an endorsement of the content of the paper.



33/58

OGC

®

Other OGC documents

Engineering Report (ER)

– A document that reports on some technical activity in an InteroperabilityProgram Initiative. An ER is by default not a publicly available document,

but can be approved as a Public Engineering Report by member vote. An

ER does not represent the official position of the OGC nor of the OGCTechnical Committee.

Discussion Paper

– A document containing discussion of some technology or standards work

for release to the public. Discussion Papers are not the official position ofthe OGC and contain a statement to that effect.

White Paper

–

A publication released by the OGC to the Public that states a position on asocial, political, technical or other subject, often including a high-level

explanation of an architecture or framework of a solution. A White Paper

often explains the results or conclusions of research.



34/58

OGC

®

Change Request (CR)

Can be submitted by anyone – Member or non-Members

Use the public Change Request Submission application

–

http://portal.opengeospatial.org/public_ogc/change_request.php



35/58

OGC

®

Collaboration using GitHub

Many standards activities using GitHub for code, schema,and document management

Example: https://github.com/opengeospatial/CityGML-3.0

Most are private repositories, more and more will be public



36/58

OGC

®

Voting

Votes can occur in any of the following venues:

– At the opening or closing Technical Committee plenary

–

In any of the Working Groups

– In any of the TC sub-committees

Votes can happen at face to face meetings or by electronicvote.

There are rules regarding who can vote, when, and it what

forum. These cases are now defined…

.



37/58

OGC

®

Votes in a Working Group

Can happen in face-to-face (F2F) meetings or by e-vote

Simple majority of those present carries the vote

No notice is required for votes in F2F meetings

A notice is required for any WG e-votes

However, only one vote per member organization!

Policies specific to types of WGs

– Anyone can vote in a DWG

–

Only voting members of a SWG can vote in a SWG



38/58

OGC

®

Table of votes that can occur in a TC Plenary


Vote Type Who can

Vote

White Paper,Discussion Paper, or

Engineering Report

Any member

Approval of DomainWG Charter

Any member

Election of TC reps to

the PC

Any member

Best Practices Paper TC VotingMember Only

Vote Type Who can

Vote

Approval of newstandard

electronic vote

TC Votingmember only

Approval of arevision to

standard e-vote


Changes to TCP&P


ArchitectureBoard Election



39/58

OGC

®

POLICIES AND PROCEDURESREMINDERS AND UPDATE



40/58

OGC

®

Reminders of various PnP things

Reminder of last update and voting rules

Preview of new PnP

– Standards Track

–

Email voting rules



41/58

OGC

®

The Three Week Rule

Under the TC Policies and Procedures, any document thatis to be discussed and voted on by the members must be

submitted at least three weeks prior to a given meeting.

The TC can vote to suspend this policy for a specificdocument vote.

– This requires a 2/3 majority of the voting Members present in order

to override the Policies and Procedures



42/58

OGC

®

Where to submit documents for discussion

On the portal in the Pending Documents tab – Members attending a TC meeting are strongly encouraged to review the

documents in the Pending Documents catalog and read those of interest.

These documents form the foundation for many of the discussions and

votes that occur at an OGC TC meeting.

To obtain the current list of pending documents, go to:

http://portal.opengeospatial.org/index.php?m=public&orderby=default&tab=2



43/58

OGC

®

Last PnP update

Electronic voting rules

– Votes are now 45 days in duration, no extensions

–

Sufficiency is 33%

– Allowed votes are YES, NO, ABSTAIN

SWG formation

– SWG charter must be approved by the TC via electronic vote per

rules above



44/58

OGC

®

Preview of new PnP

Standards Track

Email voting rules



45/58

OGC

®

The Proposed Multi-Standards Track

Two points for entry – Community Interface , Encoding, Protocol, and/or API Standard

– Full Standards track (2 stages)

Standard

Full Standard

Community Standard

– Requires written justification for review by TC

– Requires TC approval to progress

Standard and Full Standard

– Same process as now

– Just different names based on maturity (see next slides)



46/58

OGC

®

Standards Track: characteristics


SWG EvidenceImplem

ModularSpec

CITETest

OGCTemplate

PublicComment

OABReview

IPR toOGC

MemberVote

CommunitySpecification

NR* Strong! NR* NR* Partial Yes Yes Yes orshared

Yes

Standard Yes No Yes NR* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Full standard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR – Not required.


47/58

OGC

®

Standards Track: Community Standardcharacteristics

Internally or externally developed

Requirements do not need to be “formally” stated as in the case ofusing the OGC Modular Specification

Use of OGC document template not mandatory but recommended

CITE tests not required

Must be widely implemented. There must be evidence!!

Why? Promote innovation, engagement, community dialogue without

the overhead associated with the Full standards process

Can always move into Full Standards track.



48/58

OGC

®

Standards Track: Standard

Uses OGC document template

Formally stated requirements as per the Modular Spec

CITE tests not required

May or may not have implementations

Good starting point for new standards

IPR transferred to the OGC

Focus – Promote implementations if there are none (or few), gain

community input and engagement, promote collaboration



49/58

OGC

®

Standards Track: Full Standard

Requirements clearly stated. Modular Spec followed.

OGC document template used.

Strong evidence of implementation

CITE Tests

Reference implementation(s)

Focus – Rigorous, mature standard with all elements

completed



50/58

OGC

®

Email voting rules

Email voting rules have long been present for subgroups ofthe TC

Email voting has long occurred for the TC as well, generally

using subgroup rules

New rules are drafted that clarify procedure, types of votes,and applicability

Any vote that can be held in a TC Plenary can be held byemail

Two types: “hand ballot” and “no objection”



51/58

OGC

®

QUICK LOOK BACK ATBOULDER TC MEETING



52/58

OGC

®

Testbed 11 demos

New Point Cloud DWG

2nd meeting with formal breaks



53/58

OGC

®

QUICK LOOK FORWARD TONOTTINGHAM TC MEETING



54/58

OGC

®

Theme: VGI

VGI workshop (more in Summit section)

Testbed 11

Unique opportunity at BGS

New SWGs



55/58

OGC

®

SUMMIT OVERVIEW



56/58

OGC

®

Two special events

Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) Workshop – Monday, 14 September 1300 – 1445

Augmented Reality Summit

–

Thursday, 17 September 0800 – 1200 –

Continues as part of the AR Community on Friday



57/58

OGC

®

VGI Workshop – preliminary agenda

1.

Introduction to VGI content and methods1. discussion of the common VGI data sources, methods of collection, licensing terms, COBWEB examples

2. Relevance of Standards to the VGI community

1.

where standards can contribute: data exchange, data quality, data service and user interfaces

2. other requirements that can be standardized: ontology, semantics, portrayal/symbology

3.

Challenges for VGI data exchange - role of standards to address challenges1.

VGI community concerns with restricting flexibility in content

2. dissemination requires rules: how to GeoPackage something like Open Street Map?

3. COBWEB O&M citizen profile

4. Challenges for VGI data quality assessment - role of standards to address challenges

1. implications for data fusion and propagation of uncertainty

2. Provenance

3.

precision and lack of consistency for any single source4.

accuracy vs. completeness

5. Summary and Actions

1. focus on next steps for OGC: new Domain Working Group (DWG)? Introduce topics into existing DWGs?

Whitepaper mapping Standards to problems?



58/58

OGC

®

Augmented Reality Summit

Summit goals – Discover new barriers to interoperability and discuss strategies to

minimize their impacts

– Learn of continuing and newly initiated activities relevant to open

and interoperable AR

–

Discuss emerging challenges which may be addressed viastandards or open source interfaces

– Plan for the community's future by reviewing existing activities,

chartering new work and scheduling meetings

C i ht © 2015 O G ti l C ti

2015 Nottingham Pre-TC Briefing

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Nottingham Pre-TC Briefing