This GitHub repository lets you - our users - log and track issues that you find with our standards and other document. Tag the issue with the standard or standards effected; we will assign it to the relevant group(s) within TC 211.
11
stars
0
forks
source link
General concern from AHG06 eGovernment regarding ISO 19110 Methodology for feature cataloguing #451
In the AHG on e-Government recommendations were made for the future revision of ISO standards and new standard projects:
-ISO/TC 211 should continue to derive RDF/OWL from the harmonised UML models in the ISO/TC 211 standards. Existing activities on revising mapping rules from UML to OWL/RDF will improve the ontology and mapping rules should be an ongoing
activity, according to experience from the communities. In addition, ISO/TC 211 should link to existing vocabularies and extend other vocabularies applied in e-Government with our spatial extensions where needed.
-In the revision cycles of ISO/TC 211 standards, focus should be given to investigate if there are other and more generic IT standards which it would be relevant to build geospatial extensions on top of. Of particular focus are standards from ISO/IEC
JTC1 and W3C, which are most focused in e-Government communities. This comes as an extension to the cooperative work between ISO/TC 211 and OGC .
For ISO 19110 the following concern was disucessed:
Can this standard be used outside the geospatial domain? Are there mot IT generic standards that can be applied as an alternative? What is the methodology behind for example DCAT (Data Catalogu Vocabulary)?Feature catalogue is often called object types library (OTL) in vocabularies. Generate OTL by using mapping rules in ISO 19150-2 (application schema rules)
Proposed AHG6 concern:
Consider adding realisation of feature catalogue in vocabularies.
If possible, the standard could also have an ontology in its own right as an RDF/OWL serialization. However, this task needs experts to clarify if possible.
In the AHG on e-Government recommendations were made for the future revision of ISO standards and new standard projects: -ISO/TC 211 should continue to derive RDF/OWL from the harmonised UML models in the ISO/TC 211 standards. Existing activities on revising mapping rules from UML to OWL/RDF will improve the ontology and mapping rules should be an ongoing activity, according to experience from the communities. In addition, ISO/TC 211 should link to existing vocabularies and extend other vocabularies applied in e-Government with our spatial extensions where needed.
-In the revision cycles of ISO/TC 211 standards, focus should be given to investigate if there are other and more generic IT standards which it would be relevant to build geospatial extensions on top of. Of particular focus are standards from ISO/IEC JTC1 and W3C, which are most focused in e-Government communities. This comes as an extension to the cooperative work between ISO/TC 211 and OGC .
For ISO 19110 the following concern was disucessed: Can this standard be used outside the geospatial domain? Are there mot IT generic standards that can be applied as an alternative? What is the methodology behind for example DCAT (Data Catalogu Vocabulary)?Feature catalogue is often called object types library (OTL) in vocabularies. Generate OTL by using mapping rules in ISO 19150-2 (application schema rules)
Proposed AHG6 concern: Consider adding realisation of feature catalogue in vocabularies.
If possible, the standard could also have an ontology in its own right as an RDF/OWL serialization. However, this task needs experts to clarify if possible.