RESULT OF VOTING ON NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL
Date
2007-05-25
N 2245
ISO/TC 211 / SC
Title of TC/SC concerned
Geographic information/Geomatics
To be completed by the secretariat and sent to the ISO Central Secretariat and to all P- and O-members of the TC or SC concerned, with a copy
to the TC secretariat in the case of a subcommittee.
Proposal
ISO/TC 211 N 2167
Circulation 2007-02-19
Deadline 2007-05-19
Title (new title if appropriate; French title to be indicated in all cases, even when no French version is envisaged)
English title
Revision of ISO 19117:2005: Geographic information - Portrayal
French title
Information géographique — Présentation
Results (the compilation of results is given as an annex)
The following criteria for acceptance have been met:
Approval by a simple majority of the voting P-members
5 or more P-members voting approval have agreed to participate in the development of the project and have nominated
an expert
In the light of results, the proposal is therefore:
Approved (all approval criteria met)
Not approved (one or more approval criteria not met)
Associated draft
no draft was associated with this ballot. A first draft is expected by (give date)
the associated draft is accepted for progressing to working draft (WD)
the associated draft is adopted as a working draft (WD)
the associated draft is approved as a Committee draft (CD)
the associated draft is approved as the proposed Draft International Standard (DIS)
Further procedures (attribution to TC/SC/WG, Project Leader, development procedure, meetings, etc.)
The project is to be first registered as a Preliminary Work Item (stage 00.60)
The project is to be immediately registered as an active work item
Other: The associated draft is accepted for progressing to WD, and will be further
developed by the project team.
FORM 6 (ISO) v.2007.1
Page 1 of 10
Experts (give details below, or as a separate annex)
Mr. Daniel Gleason, [email protected], DGIWG, project leader
Mr. Ian Greasley, [email protected], DGIWG, editor
Professor Li Lin, [email protected], China
Mr. Ulrich Düren, [email protected], Germany
Mr. Piergiorgio Cipriano, [email protected], Italy
Mr. Shingo Otomo, [email protected], Japan
Dr. Jinsoo You, [email protected], Korea
Dr. Eunmi Chang, [email protected], Korea
Mr. Encik Sahibi Mokhtar, [email protected], Malaysia
Mr. Sultan Al-Sayyar, [email protected], Saudi Arabia
Mr. Paul F. Strydom, [email protected], South Africa
Mr. Antony Cooper, [email protected], South Africa
Mr. Ralf Lindgren, [email protected], Sweden
Mr. Niklas Svanholm, [email protected], Sweden
Professor Stefan F. Keller, [email protected], Switzerland
Dr. Robert Walker, [email protected], United Kingdom
Ms. Randy Fusaro, [email protected], USA
Mr. Robert G. Gibson, [email protected], USA
Documents to be considered (give details below, or as a separate annex)
Japan
Japan has already developed and published a practical and simple portrayal profile
(informative) as a part of the Japan Profile for Geographic Information Standard
(JPGIS) with reference to ISO 19117 (See an attached file). The profile specifies
the symbol and annotation style dictionary, and the structure of portrayal data for
feature instances.
Switzerland
KOGIS (Hrsg.), 2006: INTERLIS 2 - Manuel de référence, édition du 2006-04-13
(français). Bundesamt für Landestopografie. Wabern.
http://www.interlis.ch/interlis2/docs23/ili2-refman_2006-04-13_f.zip
(SN612031, Edition 2006-05, englich version appearing in some weeks)
see chapters 1.6, 2.16, annex J and annex C
Proposed development track
1 (24 months)
2 (36 months - default)
3 (48 months)
Note: Selection of a development track will automatically associate default target dates with critical stages. If you envisage that you can
advance a project quicker than the default target dates you may indicate your preferred earlier target dates in the field "Target date for
submission'. Important! Quoting earlier target dates implies a commitment to meeting these dates If you do not want to change the
defaults to earlier dates do not put anything in the "Target date for submission" fields.
Target date for
submission:
as a CD:
as a DIS:
2008-06
2008-12
Secretariat
Secretary
SN
Bjørnhild Sæterøy
as a FDIS:
for publication:
2009-12
2010-06
Registration by the Central Secretariat
Date
Allocated project number
19117
Other information, comments, etc. appended
FORM 6 (ISO)
Page 2 of 10
Compilation of the results of voting on ISO/NP
Australia (SA)
Austria (ON)
Belgium (NBN)
Canada (SCC)
China (SAC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Ecuador (INEN)
Finland (SFS)
Germany (DIN)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Korea, Rep. of (KATS)
Malaysia (DSM)
Morocco (SNIMA)
Netherlands (NEN)
New Zealand (SNZ)
Norway (SN)
Portugal (IPQ)
Russian Fed. (GOST R)
Saudi Arabia (SASO)
Serbia (ISS)
South Africa (SABS)
Spain (AENOR)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
Thailand (TISI)
United Kingdom (BSI)
USA (ANSI)
Totals (P-members only)
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y
N
N
no reply (optional)
Expert(s)
nominated
19
Abst.
Participation
29
No
Comments
enclosed
X
Accepted as
DIS
Yes
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Accepted as CD
P/O
Accepted as a
WD
Member body
Accepted for
Progressing to
WD
Feasible to
develop a Globally
Relevant Standard
Accepted for Stage
0
Member
status
When a draft
has been
attached
X
X
X
X
X
Y
Y
X
X
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
X
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
X
X
X
X
Y
Y
X
N
N
X
X
X
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
X
X
Y
1
9
Y
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
X
X
5
5
Y:12 Y:12
9
Abstentions and incomplete votes are not counted
Total of P-members voting (x): 19
FORM 6 (ISO) v.2007.1
Page 3 of 10
Comments received on document N 2167
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
CA
Type
of
comment2
ge
Date: 2007-05-23
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Document: N 2236
Proposed change by the MB
Canada supports the revision of ISO19117:2005. This
standard needs better alignment with other standards and
specifications (such as DIGWG, IHO, and OGC
specifications).
It should build on the existing 19117 document, with
haronization of OGC SLD, OGC GML (v3.1.1) Default
style, and OGC Feature Portrayal Service. It should
provide a complete abstract model of the Portrayal work
flow that clearly separates content, styling and rendering,
and the management of map styles and symbols. It
should consider other 3D visualization grammars like
X3D, Collada etc. This work should go beyond 2D static
data and integrate 3D and time dependent geography as
are coverages.
The French title must be corrected to "Révision d'ISO
19117:2005:
Information
Géographique
—
Représentation."
CN
CN
2
CN
5.1
1
ge
According to the schema, a symbol is fixed in its pattern
and size, and shall not be varied with its corresponding
attribute value. This might be true in most cases,
especially in topographic features. But this schema might
bring a big burden on maintenance of the symbol library.
For example, a symbol size (circle radius ) varies with the
attribute value (population).
te
It is rough.
Should add the description of the mapping
conformance and symbol conformance
ed
The first sentence is repeated because the definition of
portrayal is given in clause 4.
Should be deleted
There are some similar problems in 6.1 and the other
parts of this document.
CN
6.2.3.1
FORM 6 (ISO) v.2007.1
1
te
“These feature types specialize a common parent and
therefore share common attributes.” Is it a requirement
for feature data model or for feature portrayal schema?
How to match it if there is a difference between them.
Page 4 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
Date: 2007-05-23
Document: N 2236
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
CN
6.2.3.1
2
te
“the feature portrayal object” is a new term which is not
defined or described in the context.
Please give the definition of “the feature portrayal
object” or put “the feature portrayal object” in
clause 4.
CN
6.2.3.2
1
ge
“Cardinality of instance” is too difficulty to understand.
Could be changed the word “cardinality “to another
word.
CN
Annex A
1
te
The contents of abstract test suite are missing.
Add test suite
JP
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Proposed change by the MB
The following points should be taken into consideration.
1. This work should be widely investigated similarly
standards such as JPGIS.
2. There are various mechanisms and representations by
the country. Therefore, various needs should be able to
be implemented flexibly by using this standard.
NO
1
Za1
Za2
6.3
2
6.2.1, 6.3.1
FORM 6 (ISO)
te
In 6.3 a portrayal rule is exemplified using pure text. This
is similar to the previous version of 19117 where a textual
syntax was widely used for examples throughout the
document. Is it the intention that portrayal rules shall be
presented using pure textual notation as in 6.3.2.1? This
rule is defined based on a syntax which is described both
by a BNF grammar and a UML-model. Which one is
normative? Is this case the BNF is far more precise that
the UML model. The model also aims at modelling
bolean operators and comparison operators for
describing rule expressions. Could not these rules
precisely be described using XML (SLD like) using
operators from ISO 19143 Filter Encoding to build up the
expressions?
2
Ge
Why list these items with no conformance testing? Since
this document is a revision of a published standard, one
would assume that in this revision conformance testing
should be specified.
Figure 6,
Figure 18
Ed
One would assume that the “…” symbol in Figures 6 and
18 denotes additional interfaces which are not shown in
these figures.
Define XML-syntax to express portrayal rules and
use present work in Filter Encoding to build up the
rule expressions.
Page 5 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
Date: 2007-05-23
Document: N 2236
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
Za3
6.2.1
2nd
paragraph,
1st sentence
Ed
The sentence refers to 8 interfaces and 3 codelists, but in
Figure 5 only 5 interfaces, 1 codelist and two external
links are indicated.
Za4
6.2.3.1
3rd
paragraph,
2nd sentence
Ed
The sentence: “Given a portrayal mapping and a
delineation, it is possible that a feature does not matches
any of the feature types associated with the mapping's
feature portrayals.” Is not grammatically correct.
Change to: “Given a portrayal mapping and a
delineation, it is possible that a feature does not
match any of the feature types associated with the
mapping's feature portrayals.”
Za5
6.3.4.1
Last
sentence
Ge
What is meant with: “In the grammar defined in clause
6.3.1 an attribute expression is an or-expression.”?
Za6
6.3.7.1
Grammar
example
Ed
The grammar example is split from its explanation on the
next page.
Add an expression example, similar to clause
6.3.3.1, with an explanation of the statement in
question.
Move grammar example to the next page.
Za7
6.3.12.2
Heading and
1st sentence
Ed
Misspelling of “PF_atttributevalue”.
Za8
Annex A
Annex A
Ge
Missing abstract test suite content.
Za9
Whole
document
Whole
document
Ge
This NWIP does not clearly reflect the topological
relationships between symbols in cases where, for
example, these symbols may overlap.
CH
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Proposed change by the MB
The french title of the NWIP has been changed from
"Ontologie" to "Présentation"
In the attached working draft proposal fig. 5 shows thet
the function mapping data to symbols starts on the data
side with the feature catalogue. The feature catalogue
should be replaced by the conceptual application
schema, which is more precise.
GB
FORM 6 (ISO)
Whilst the UK supports the revision of ISO 19117 in order
to remove identifed deficiencies, we are concerned that
the new draft introduces more problems. In particular, the
requirement is not clearly specified. This is illustrated by
the lack of conformance statement and abstract test suite.
Development of these will help to clarify the requirement.
Page 6 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
US
1
All
All
US
2
All
US
3
6.3 – All
US
4
All
FORM 6 (ISO)
Date: 2007-05-23
Document: N 2236
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Proposed change by the MB
ge
This NWIP substantially limits the scope of what is
considered a “portrayal”. The current ISO 19117 defines
a general framework where a portrayal could be an audio
or tactile presentation of information. The revised 19117
would restrict portrayal to mean “graphical
representations which are related to feature instances via
a mapping of property values”. The mapping is further
restricted to a one-to-one relationship between feature
instances and symbols. Aside from forever eliminating
the possibility of “accessibility” extensions, this would
preclude a representation of wind barbs when the data
source is the gridded output of a weather model which
produces separate wind U and V component grids. It
would also preclude the specification of a “Skew-T” plot,
which has been a common means of presenting
meteorological information since at least 1979. However,
the point is well taken that 19117 is insufficiently specific
to provide for interoperable specification of the most
common use case: mapping single feature instances to
single symbols using their property values.
Rather than rewrite the current 19117, consider
the creation of 19117-2: Portrayal Catalogue for
Rules Based Mapping. The schema proposed in
this draft should be refactored into a centrally
defined Portrayal Catalogue available for common
use. This approach preserves the generality of the
current standard while providing the level of detail
required for interoperable modelling and portrayal
of map portrayal data. This approach also
demonstrates to users of the standard how to
produce a Portrayal Catalogue for their own
organization's use or for a domain specialization.
All
te
The notion of a Portrayal Catalogue has been eliminated
from this new work item. This has maintenance
implications for at least 19115, and maybe others.
Re-establish (or avoid removing) the Portrayal
Catalogue concept.
Fig. 18
ge
ISO 19143 assimilates the OGC Filter specification, which
is a means of selecting particular feature instances via a
more complete set of binary predicates than presented
here. Although 19143 is an XML implementation
specification, it derives from a BNF model in the OpenGIS
Catalogue Services Specification. A UML model based
on this same BNF grammar could be used in place of the
incompatible grammar presented in this section.
Coordinate with the 19143 editing committee such
that a UML model is produced from the BNF in
section 6.2 of the OGC 04-021r2 OpenGIS
Catalogue Services Specification. An additional
benefit of this approach: 19143 already specifies a
widely-adopted XML encoding of the TBD UML
model. Prefer that the UML model be integrated
into the 19143 specification instead of 19117.
ge
In the parlance of 19128, this proposed work creates a
model in which a “Style” may be articulated in an
implementation independent manner. Further, the
“Layers” to which the “Style” may be applied may also be
articulated by implementation independent means.
None. Briefback/confirmation only.
Page 7 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
US
5
4.1
US
6
4.1.15
US
7
5.1
Figure 2
US8
6.1
1st
paragraph,
2nd sentence
US
9
6.1
US
10
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Document: N 2236
Proposed change by the MB
The ISO Directives specify that a definition shall not begin
with a definite or indefinite article. Several of the
definitions in this clause begin with an article.
Delete the initial articles from the definitions at
4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.15, 4.1.16, 4.1.20, and 4.1.24
I wonder why the common language meaning of "library"
is not sufficient. The reference to "single type" may not
be appropriate considering that a single type at one level
of a type hierarch may devolve into several types at a
lower level. I would expect the organization of the
collection to be more important.
Delete term and definition or change definition to
"organized collection of items available for use."
.
This figure would be more helpful if there were
some text explaining what the symbol means, and
how that is affected by the placement of its
elements.
Ed
Disagreement in number between subject and verb.
Change "partitions" to "partition."
1st
paragraph,
6th sentence
te
How does the "feature data model" mentioned here relate
to an application schema as specified by ISO 19109. ISO
19109, ISO 19110, and ISO 19131 all imply or explicitly
require a close association between a feature catalogue
and an application schema.
Explain.
6.2.2.1
1st
paragraph,
4th sentence
Ed
The fact that a feature catalogue defines feature types
and their associated attributes is an essential part of this
statement.
Change the non-restrictive clause to a restrictive
clause.
US
11
6.2.3.1
3rd
paragraph,
2nd sentence
Ed
Incorrect number of verb.
Change "does not matches" to "does not match."
US
12
6.2.3.1
4th
paragraph,
2nd sentence
Ed
Incorrect punctuation separating independent clauses.
Change comma to semicolon.
US
13
6.2.3.2
1st
paragraph,
2nd sentence
Te
An association does not have a cardinality'; each of its
ends (roles) has a cardinality.
Change "of this association" to "of this role."
FORM 6 (ISO)
ed
Date: 2007-05-23
Page 8 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
Date: 2007-05-23
Document: N 2236
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
US
14
6.2.3.6
2nd sentence
Te
This statement implies that a feature represented as a
geometric complex would have to be divided into a set of
features each with a single topological dimension ore
portrayed by a symbol appropriate for some but not all of
its primitive components.
Somewhere in this standard, explain how
geometric or topological complexes may be
portrayed.
US
15
6.2.3.9
1st
paragraph,
1st sentence
Te
I don't understand the optionality here. How is the option
selected? Conditionality would make more sense.
Consider changing "optionally" to "conditionally"
and state the condition(s) under which symbol is
(or is not) returned.
US
16
6.2.8
Te
The list of lighting conditions needs to be expanded.
There are a number of specification for maps and charts
for more specific lighting conditions. Softcopy displays
may be sensitive to the intensity of the environmental
lighting.
Add 'artificial white-light', 'red-light', green-light',
blue-light' and 'low-light'. Consider adding 'twilight'
and 'moon-light' and changing 'night' to 'dark.'
US
17
6.2.10
Te
Use of symbology may be restricted by paper quality in
printed maps, not to mention that maps may be printed,
or otherwise rendered, on material other than paper, e.g.
plastic.
Add and attribute for material type.
US
18
6.2.11.3
Te
The use of the 'Real' data type implies that the unit of
measure for the screen dimensions is 'Length' rather than
pixel counts.
Say so.
US
19
6.2.11.4
Te
Screen resolution options are described for most
computers in terms of display area dimensions expressed
as pixel counts. That is clearly not possible with a single
Integer value. The common method for expressing
screen resolution as a single numerical value is to state it
in terms of pixels ("dots") per unit length.
Define what is meant by "screen resolution."
US
20
6.2.12
Te
The attributes 'color' and 'gray' each cover wide range of
capabilities dependent upon the number of bits used to
represent/render the color or gray scale intensity.
Either break out codes for different bit levels of
color and gray scale, or add an attribute
'numberOfBits' to PF_Softcopy.
US
21
6.3.4.1
te
If and attribute expression is an or expression, as stated
here, why are they represented as separate classes in
the UML model? What is the essential difference
between the 'evaluate' operation of one class and that of
the other?
Consider merging the two classes.
FORM 6 (ISO)
2nd
paragraph
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Proposed change by the MB
Page 9 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted
Comments received on document N 2167
Date: 2007-05-23
Document: N 2236
MB1
Clause No./
Subclause No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
US
22
7.2.2.6
Te
US
23
7.3.7.2,
7.3.7.3,
7.3.8.2,
7.3.8.3
Ed
The second sentence of each of these four subclauses
contains references to "attributes, operations, and
associations ... specified in this subclause," but there are
no attributes, operations, and associations specified in
these subclauses.
Delete "as well as those specified in this
subclause" from the second sentence in each
subclause..
US
24
7.3.7, 7.3.8
te
These sections reinforce the false notion that “a coverage
is gridded data” and “a geometry is vector data.” This
capricious use of language and schemata (aside from
being incorrect) serves to confuse users of the 19100
series. The main difference between these two
approaches is that SR_VectorGraphic contains no
mapping from domain to range while SR_GriddedGraphic
does. The definitions should be made consistent, and
should avoid any misleading statements about vector and
raster data capabilities of 19123/19107.
If no domain-range mapping is desired: Make
SR_GriddedGraphic inherit from
CV_GridValuesMatrix instead of CV_Coverage.
Defining SR_GriddedGraphic as a mapping of domain to
range is modelling a geospatial Image. (e.g. A rendering
of geospatial data.) If it is the intent to model geospatial
images with “portrayal mapping rules”, proper integration
with 19101-2, 19115-2, and the abandoned work in 19129
should be attended to.
Avoid mapping domain to range for any child of
SR_Graphic.
US
25
7.3.8
FORM 6 (ISO)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment2
te
Comment (justification for change) by the MB
Proposed change by the MB
Consider using RE_FieldOfApplication as the data
type for SR_SymbolLibrary.fieldOfApplication,
especially if there is any intent to maintain symbol
libraries as registers.
If a domain-range mapping is desired: Make
SR_Graphic inherit from CV_DiscreteCoverage.
Either way, eliminate references to CV_Coverage
representing a gridded data type and GM_Object
representing a vector data type.
Page 10 of 10
Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted