| No |
Date reported |
Standard |
Related Standard |
Comment (justification for change) |
Proposed change |
PMG comment |
| 28 |
2011-04-04
PMG |
ISO 19131:2007 |
|
Unresolved comment on ISO 19131:2007/DAmd 1, submitted by JP:
Annex E, Table E.2
The definition of narrativeDescription is now 'unique identifier of data'. Narrative description is not an unique identifier. |
Change 'unique identifier of data' to 'narrative description' or 'narrative description of the content and structure' |
|
| 27 |
2011-04-04
PMG |
ISO 19131:2007 |
|
Unresolved comment on ISO 19131:2007/DAmd 1, submitted by JP:
Annex E, Figure E.2
In ISO 19131:2007 has two classes, DPS_FeatureBasedDataInformation and DPS_CoverageInformation. Now that there is no distinction between the two at this level,
the class name 'DPS_FeatureBasedDataInformation' is not appropriate.
In addtion, DPS_ContentAndStructureInformation has only one inherited class, and then it is not necessary to exit the class.
|
Delete the class of DPS_FeatureBasedDataInformation |
|
| 26 |
2011-04-04
PMG |
ISO 19131:2007 |
|
Unresolved comment on ISO 19131:2007/DAmd 1, submitted by SE:
Annex E, Figure E.2
DPS_ScopeInformation missing 'from Specification Scopes'. Not consistent with other figures.
|
Add 'from Specification Scopes' to DPS_ScopeInformation. |
|
| |
2010-12-09
PMG |
ISO 19128:2005, ISO/TS 19139:2007 |
|
Incorrect use of EPSG code as 'EPSG:4326' in ISO 19128, and as 'EPSG4326' or '4326' in ISO/TS 19139. |
Correct use was 'EPSG::4326', as specified in OGC 6-023r1 Definition identifier URNs in
OGC namespace, which was superseded by OGC 07-092r3 for the URN form, which has itself been superseded by
OGC 09-048r3 Name type specification - definitions - part 1 - basic name for the http URI form which as of June 2010 became the preferred form for OGC identifiers.
Hence, identifiers for EPSG definitions are
http://www.opengis.net/def/{type}/EPSG/0/{code} where {type} is crs, cs, datum, etc.
|
PMG comment submitted to draft NWIP for XML implementation of ISO 19115-1 (2011-11-15) |
| 24 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19118:2005, Geographic information - Encoding |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19118 |
Project leader of 19118rev informed |
| 23 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19117:2005, Geographic information - Portrayal |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19117 |
Project leader of 19117rev informed; the reported harmonization issues are irrelevant to 19117rev, amongst others because of the conceptual (UML) model in the revision. |
| 22 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19112:2003, Geographic information - Spatial referencing by geographic identifiers |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19112 |
|
| 21 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19109:2005, Geographic information - Rules for application schema |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19109 |
PMG comment submitted to the NWIP for the revision of ISO 19109 (2011-04-24). |
| 20 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19108:2002, Geographic information - Temporal schema |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19108 |
|
| 19 |
2009-11-16
from PT19140 |
ISO 19107:2003, Geographic information - Spatial schema |
|
Harmonization issues reported in
PT 19140, Geographic information amendment process |
To be considered when revising ISO 19107 |
|
| 18 |
2009-11-16
from the USA |
ISO 19125-2:2004, Geographic information - Simple feature access - Part 2: SQL option |
|
Various harmonization issues reported in the report on
Spatial Harmonization Opportunities |
To be considered when revising ISO 19125-2 |
|
| 17 |
2009-11-16
from the USA |
ISO 19136:2007, Geographic information - Geography Markup Langauge |
|
Various harmonization issues reported in the report on
Spatial Harmonization Opportunities |
To be considered when revising ISO 19136 |
PMG comment submitted to the systematic review (2010-12-15) |
| 16 |
2009-11-16
from the USA |
ISO 19107:2003, Geographic information - Spatial schema |
|
Various harmonization issues reported in the report on
Spatial Harmonization Opportunities |
To be considered when revising ISO 19107 |
|
| 15 |
2009-11-05
from 19148 EC |
ISO 19133:2005, Location based services - Tracking and navigation |
ISO 19148:2004, Geographic information - Linear referencing system |
The package Linear Referencing Systems defined in 19148 conflicts in its class names and semantics with the
package Linear Reference Systems defined in ISO 19133 subclause 6.6.(refer to comment #38 of the 19148 NWIP comment resolution in document n2758 |
19148 extends what was started in 19133 and is more generally applicable to areas beyond just
Tracking and Navigation. Therefore, when 19148 is completed, removal of content of 19133 Clause 6.6 and replacement with a pointer to 19148 should be recommended.
19148 will be based on the same model as 19133 6.6. |
|
| 14 |
2009-11-05
from 19148 EC |
ISO 19116:2004, Geographic information - Positioning services |
ISO 19148:2004, Geographic information - Linear referencing system |
Term for 'linear referencing' in 19116 should be harmonized with the term in 19148 (refer to comment #30 of the 19148 CD comment resolution in document n2758 |
Modify definition in revision of 19116 |
|
| 13 |
2009-11-05
from 19152 EC |
ISO 19115:2003, Geographic information - Metadata |
ISO 19152:(to appear), Geographic information - Land administration data model |
External 'Party' class is required for LADM |
Consider adding base class Party to revision of 19115, from which currently defined CI_ResponsibleParty in 19115,
as well as LA_Party (LADM) are derived |
Project leader of 19115rev has been informed.
PMG comment submitted on ISO/CD 19115-1 (2011-04-21). |
| 12 |
2009-11-04
from 19152 EC |
ISO 19156:(to appear), Geographic information - Observations and measurements |
|
Need to ensure that ISO 19156 includes the observations and measurements of surveying
(refer to CA27, CA68, CA70 in document n2805)
|
ISO 19156 is hopefully sufficiently general that it does. Currentlyit does not include a surveying example.
19152 will investigate and provide feedback. |
|
| 11 |
2009-11-04
from 19152 EC |
ISO 19108:2002, Geographic information - Temporal schema |
|
Need cyclic patterns in Time, in combination with time intervals, i.e. refinement of TM_Period (refer to CA40 in
document n2805)
Example1: Every month January in the time interval 2010-2050
Example2: Every month April and every Sunday in the month June |
Consider adding when revising or amending 19108
Refer to Time classes available in GDF |
|
| 10 |
2009-11-04
from 19152 EC |
ISO 19107:2003, Geographic information - Spatial schema |
|
ISO 19107 does not cater for unbounded objects
(refer to FR14, CA30 in document n2805)
There might be other spatial representation methods required by ISO 19152 (refer to CA30 in document n2805)
Topology for LADM: operators such as overlap, touch, etc. not in 19107, only in 19125 (currently under revision), but should not loose these operators (refer to CA74 in document n2805) |
Consider adding when revising or amending 19107 |
|
| 9 |
2009-11-04
from 19156 EC |
ISO 19109:2005, Geographic information - Rules for application schema,
ISO 19123:2005, Geographic information - Schema for coverage geometry and functions |
ISO 19156:(to appear), Geographic information - Observations and measurements |
Annex B of ISO 19156 (about to be offered as a final CD) includes some classes required for O&M that probably should be owned by 19109 and 19123. |
Consider mvoing these classes to 19109 and 19123 when they are revised or amended |
PMG comment submitted to the NWIP for the revision of ISO 19109 (2011-04-24). |
| 8 |
2009-10-10
from 19156 EC |
ISO 19135:2005, Geographic information - Procedures for item registration |
ISO 19115:2003, Geographic information - Metadata< |
MD_Identifier and RS_Identifier are defined in ISO 19115. However, identification is a general concern and is not specific to 'metadata'.
Identifier assignment is a principal side-effect of registration, so 19135 is a more suitable standard in which to define an identifier model.
RE_RegisterItem has attribute itemIdentifier. It is not clear how this relates to MD_Identifier.
The type is shown as 'Integer'. Is it strictly part of the model that the identifier is an Integer? This type appears to reflect implementation expectations. Or is it a protected or private attribute?
What is the relationship between this and externally visible identifiers, such as URIs?
|
The identifier in RE_RegisterItem should be a 'derived' attribute |
19115rev project leader has been informed. |
| 7 |
2009-10-10
from 19156 EC |
ISO 19135:2005, Geographic information - Procedures for item registration |
ISO 19115:2005, Geographic information - Metadata, ISO 19119, Geographic information - Services |
An Identifier is used to provide an anchor for inbound references. It is not clear how this is supported by the mechanisms shown in 19135.
How should external applications refer to register items? Can external applications refer to items whose status is not valid?
|
Specialize RE_RegisterItem for items where status='valid' to indicate a class that has an externally safe identifier. |
|
| 6 |
2009-10-10
from 19156 EC |
ISO 19123:2005, Geographic information - Schema for coverage geometry and functions |
ISO 19111:2007, Geographic information - Spatial referencing by coordinates |
19111 makes a distinction between coordinate conversion (no datum change) and transformation (datum change).
Fig 17. in 19123 and the definition of CV_RectifiedGrid use both 'conversion' and 'transformation', inconsistent with 19111.
Either Fig 17. or the definition must change.
(Result of discussion in OGC TC meeting, 2009-09-29)
An alternative view is that ISO 19123 mixes what should be two distinct topics: the placement of a Grid CS into a CRS, and the issue of transforming grid data from one CRS to another. It is not clear that the second topic is actually in scope for ISO 19123.
(Based on a subsequent email from Charles Roswell.)
|
CV_RectifiedGrid could specialize CV_ReferenceableGrid.
Or
CV_RectifiedGrid should be removed from ISO 191923.
|
|
| 5 |
2009-03-12
from Finland |
ISO 19115,Geographic information - Metadata,
ISO 19119, Geographic information - Services,
ISO 19139, Geographic information - Metadata - XML Schema implementation
|
INSPIRE Metadata Implementing Rules |
The differences between ISO 19115, ISO 19119 and the INSPIRE Metadata Implementing Rules are listed
in the guidelines at
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/ImplementingRules/metadata/MD_IR_and_ISO_20081219.pdf
|
Among others, there are metadata elements identified in the INSPIRE process that are not in ISO 19115
that should be forwarded to the forthcoming revision of ISO 19115.
|
19115rev project leader has been informed.
PMG comment submitted on ISO/CD 19115-1 (2011-04-21).
PMG comment submitted to the NWIP for the revision of ISO 19119:2005 (2011-04-25). |
| 4 |
2009-03-12
from Australia |
ISO 19145, Geographic information - Registry of representations of geographic point locations |
ISO 19135, Geographic information - Procedures for item registration |
Should ISO 19145 be a profile of ISO 19135?
ISO 19145 is very similar to ISO 19135. In fact it is just a special case of a register. That is, a registry of Geographic Point Locations.
The ISO 19145 GPL_Register class has the elements name, summary, uniformResourceIdentifier, operatingLanguage, version and dateOfLastChange.
These are very similar to the 19135 RE_Register class elements, name, contentSummary, uniformResourceIdentifier, operatingLanguage,
alternativeLanguages, version and dateOfLastChange respectively.
|
ISO 19145 should be a profile of ISO 19135 that is registered with ISO TC 211. Yes, there are some changes to the cardinality of the
classes and elements but these differences can be identified in a profile.
Similarly, ISO 19112 has specifications for a gazetteer.
Can't ISO 19145 be a gazetteer? The definition of a gazetteer is 'directory of instances of a class or classes of features containing
some information regarding position'. Isn't that very similar to a register of representations of geographic point locations?
Another example of similarity is the Catalogue Service and a Registry.
A catalogue service is very similar to a registry. In fact, a catalogue service is a registry of geographic information and/or web services
that deliver that geographic information. Also, there is nothing stopping ISO 19115 metadata being used for non-geographic information.
There is even a hierarchyLevel called 'nonGeographicDataset'. Therefore, a catalogue service could also be used to discover metadata
about non-geographic information. This is very similar to what a registry does. Couldn't a catalogue service be
classed as a registry or visa versa if the catalogue service is better defined?
|
19145 project leader has been informed |
| 3 |
2009-01-27
from Australia |
ISO 19156, Geographic information - Observations and measurements (not yet published) |
ISO 19109:2005, Geographic information - Rules for application schema,
ISO 19123:2005, Geographic information - Schema for coverage geometry and functions |
Feature property may have coverage value:
ISO 19156 describes a property-value provider model.
This is linked to the ISO 19109 GFM, under which features are the generic carriers of properties.
Feature properties, and thus the results of observations, may be either constant in a feature, or variable across a feature.
The notion of "a property that varies within the scope of the feature" is allowed for in the GFM,
using a feature association where the target of the association is a coverage (ISO 19123).
However, this reconciliation of the feature and coverage viewpoints is not widely understood.
|
It would be helpful if ISO 19109 were revised to include specific reference to the fact that feature-associations may be
between 'conventional' and 'coverage' features, where the meaning is that the coverage describes a variable property of the feature.
Alternatively, a coverage must be related to one or more 'features' of some type that may logically carry the property whose variation
is described. This may be trivial - e.g. the 'medium' whose extent matches the domain-extent of the coverage
(e.g. atmosphere, ocean, earth) - and may merely be described in the coverage 'metadata'.
But it is nonetheless required to add a notion of 'the feature carrying the coverage' to ISO 19123 in order to make it
consistent with the GFM.
|
PMG comment submitted to the NWIP for the revision of ISO 19109 (2011-04-24). |
| 2 |
2009-01-27
from Australia |
ISO 19156, Geographic information - Observations and measurements (not yet published) |
ISO 19103:2005, Geographic information - Conceptual schema language |
Stereotype for property whose value is determined by observation:
ISO 19156 describes a model for the determination of feature properties where the value is estimated,
rather than asserted. Within an application schema it would be useful if these two classes of properties were distinguished from each other,
so that those whose value may be determined by an observation can be identified.
|
This could be achieved by adding a stereotype
'estimatedProperty' to the ISO 19103 UML profile, to be used on attributes and association-roles to mark those properties
whose value is amenable to determination by application of an observation procedure and is there for an estimate,
in contrast to those properties whose value is assigned by an authority and therefore exact.
This may flow through in implementation to a mechanism to resolve the 'Observation' that provided the value-estimate
(i.e. a property-metadata syntax).
|
19103rev project leader has been informed |
| 1 |
2009-01-23
from Australia |
ISO19115:2003, Geographic information - Metadata
A.2.1, Figure A.1 |
ISO19119:2005, Geographic information - Services
7.4.1, Figure 8 |
Duplication between MD_Metadata/resourceConstraints and SV_ServiceIdentification/restrictions. The two types potentially store identical information; cause for ambiguity |
Eliminate duplication |
19115rev project leader has been informed.
PMG comment submitted on ISO/CD 19115-1 (2011-04-21).
PMG comment submitted to the NWIP for the revision of ISO 19119:2005 (2011-04-25). |
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|