OGC in the SDO environment

Copyright © 2012, Open Geospatial Consortium

OGC in the SDO environment

6 juin 2012Standards in Action workshop

Philippe Delclaux

Making Location Count…Copyright © 2012, Open Geospatial Consortium

The OGC Mission

• To serve as a global forum for the development, promotion and harmonization of open and

freely available geospatial standards …

• OGC CityGML, 3D Urban Models:•Urban Planning

• Emergency Mgt / Response

• Transportation / Routing / Logistics

• Indoor navigation

•Retail Site analysis

• Sustainable / Green Communities

• City Services Management

• Noise abatement

• Telecommunications placement

•Many other uses…

Making Location Count…

3

OGC At A Glance

• A non-profit, international voluntary consensus standards organization that is leading development of standards for geospatial and location based services.

• Founded in 1994.

• 438 members and growing

• 35 implementation standards

• Hundreds of product implementations in market

• Broad user community implementation worldwide

• Alliances and collaborative activities with ISO and many other SDO’s

Commercial41%

Government18%

NGO10%

Research7%

University24%

© 2012, Open Geospatial Consortium


4

OGC At A Glance

• A non-profit, international voluntary consensus standards organization that is leading development of standards for geospatial and location based services.

• Founded in 1994.

• 438 members and growing

• 35 implementation standards

• Hundreds of product implementations in market

• Broad user community implementation worldwide

• Alliances and collaborative activities with ISO and many other SDO’s

Africa; 4

Asia Pacific; 59

Europe 203

Middle East7

North America 163

South America 2



OGC Activities Driven by Community Needs

Health

Education & Research Sustainable Development

EnergyConsumer Services Geosciences

Emergency Services

E -Government

Utilities

Logistics &Transport


Influenced By - Policy

• Addressing the wide variation in policy worldwide related to information:

– Sharing– Access and use– Licensing– Funding– Standards– Privacy– Security



Influenced By - Changing Technology

• Web 2.0, IPV6

• The Cloud

• Earth Browser Systems

• Service Oriented Architecture “vs” Restful Oriented Architecture

• Software As A Service (SaaS)

• Mobile Applications

• Geolocated devices and sensors

• Mass Market



Influenced by MembersOGC Commercial Members


Influenced by MembersExample Government Members

• US DHS• US DISA• US EPA• US FAA• US NASA• USGS• US NGA• US Census• US NOAA• US JPEO• Oak Ridge National Lab• Natural Resources Canada• North Carolina Dept of Environment &

Natural Resources• Dept. Science & Technology (India)

• Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (S. Korea)

• DOD Australia• Geoscience Australia• NSW Dept of Environment and Climate

Change (Australia)• Eurocontrol• European Environment Agency• European Satellite Centre• European Space Agency• EU Joint Research Centre• UK MOD• UK MET Office• METEO France• BRGM (France)• IGN (France)• Ordnance Survey (UK) ...• State Land Agencies (Germany)



Influenced by national and regional requirements: OGC Forum Activities

• Play an important role in a region or nation to organize OGC standards requirements, education and outreach activities consistent with language, culture, policy, and politics

– Regional

• OGC Europe Forum

– National• UK/Ireland Forum(2005)

• France Forum (2008)

• India Forum (2009)

• OGC Korea Forum (2009)

• Iberian and Latin America (ILAF - 2010)

• Asia Forum(Japan, Korea, China,Taiwan – October 2011)



Influenced By - Language

• Not just spoken and written languages but

– Semantics

– Vocabularies

– Content models

– Ontologies

www.onegeology.orgOGC WMS, WFS, GML, GeoSciML, O&M

Source: Commission for the Management and

Application of Geoscience Information(CGI)



Influenced by the OGC Global Advisory Council

13

• Non-executive international panel of leaders to advise OGC Board and membership on globalisation strategy, challenges and opportunities

• Focus on:

– Identify and convey strategic regional interoperability needs to the OGC process

– Regional communication and uptake of OGC capability

– Coordinating with OGC Forum activities at regional and national levels

– Building awareness and membership presence in less represented regions of the world.



Influenced By – Public Input

• Requests for Information• Requests for Comment• Call For Participation• Requirements Registry

– Change Requests– New Requirements



OGC Change RequestEnhanced Capabilities

– Interoperability Requirements• Preliminary requirements concepts• Change Requests• New Requirements - Identified need

not linked to existing OGC document

– Programs & Organizations affected• INSPIRE, GMES, IOOS, NATO,

DGIWG, others…• Linkage to external standards

– Urgency and impact• priority, due dates, implications of

non-action• Programs, policies, laws affected

• Web-based tool to capture, manage, report:



Influenced by OGC Alliance Partners A Critical Resource for Advancing Standards

… and otherswww.opengeospatial.org/ogc/alliancepartners



Geospatial is almost everywhere

• Google Earth in 2005, • GPS chip in more and more devices,• Business Intelligence handles information which, most of the

time, carries a geospatial component (it is estimated thatbetween 90 and 100 % of the handled information deals with location),

• Internet of Things is a growing geo-information producer and consumer.

In this perspective, alliances with other SDO’s is crucial1.to maintain a good coherence and to facilitate the adoption

by the various stakeholders,2.to share methodologies for better efficiency and reactivity.



OGC and ISO

• ISO has authorized OGC as a Class A Liaison with Technical Committee 211

– Formal “Joint Advisory Group”

– Submission of OGC Standards for adoption as ISO Standards

– Liaison request submitted to JTC1 for WG 7 Sensor Networks



ISO/IEC JTC1 Working Group 7Sensor Networks

• OGC staff and members have participated in this activity since 2008.

• Have now, with support from members, convinced this group to consider SWE standards as part of sensor network standards stack.

• Therefore, OGC has been requested to submit OGC SWE standards using JTC1 PAS (Publicly Available Standard) process– Application submitted in October 2011,– Use of PAS process for OGC SWE approved in February 2012 by

JTC1



OGC and CEN

• OGC formal Liaison with CEN287 for standards coordination



Resulting in - Standards Coordination



OGC and ITU

• Over the last year, OGC staff have collaborated with ITU staff on several topics, such as the Internet of Things.

• OGC staff have presented to and are working with ITU SC 24 on Open GeoSMS becoming a joint OGC – ITU Standard

• Issue: ITU wants OGC to join as Member. OGC wants a formal MoU with membership swap.



Alliance - OASIS

• Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

• OGC and OASIS have a formal MoU.

• Collaborating since 2004.

• Mostly involved in the Emergency Management, Customer Information, and SOA Architecture Technical Committees.

• OGC Chairs the GIS/Geospatial Subcommittee of the Emergency Management TC



EDXL Family of OASIS Emergency Messaging Standards

� Common Alerting Protocol (CAP 1.1) - The original “model” for this standards process prior to “EDXL” nomenclature. An XML message for exchange of emergency alerts, notifications, and public warnings

� Distribution Element (DE 1.0) – Easy wrap and route any EDXL or other emergency information (XML and non-XML). “Address" the package in flexible ways to support intelligent routing by roles, geographic area, or keywords

� Resource Messaging (RM 1.0) - OASIS standard in November 2008. A suite of 16 standard XML formats for exchange of emergency resource information (equipment, supplies, people, and teams). Expedite all activities associated with resources needed to respond and adapt to emergency incidents.

� Hospital AVailability Exchange (HAVE 1.0) - OASIS standard in November 2008. An XML message for exchange of hospital status, services and resources. Assists hospital coordination and routing of patients to facilities for care during emergencies

� Situation Reporting (SitRep) – Committee Draft expected October 2010. An XML message for exchange of situation / incident / event and response information. Increase effectiveness of preparation, response, and coordination providing a basis for incident management decision-making.



OASIS and GML

• HAVE – Hospital Availability: Currently uses GeoRSS GML

• CIQ-xAL (eXtensible Address Language): Currently uses GeoRSS GML

• OASUS EM TC just approved a profile of GML Simple Features 3.2.1 – Technical Note for use in all EM TC standards – EDXL-DE– EDXL-RM

• Next version of Common Alert Protocol will use same profle



OGC and OASIS standards

• OGC has tested and demonstrated Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) standard to organize OGC Web Services workflows.

• XACML is the core standard for the OGC GeoXACML standard

• ebRIM is used for a profile of Catalog

• Several OASIS authentication standards have been tested with OGC web interface standards

• KML uses CIQ-xAL



Collaboration with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

• Participated in the GeoPriv Working group since 2004– www.ietf.org

• OGC Staff participated in the definition, content model, and encodings for the Location Object.– Civic– Geodetic

• The Geodetic (coordinate) encoding is a GML 3.1 application schema.

• Now also specified as a mandatory internet standard for the Next Generation 9-1-1 system



OGC and IETF Collaboration

• Presence Information Data Format (RFC 4119 and subsequent revisions)– The PIDF LO RFC extends PIDF to allow encapsulation of location

information within a presence document.– (PIDF) is a common presence data format for CPP-compliant presence

protocols, allowing presence information to be transferred across CPP-compliant protocol boundaries without modification, with attendant benefits for security and performance.

• Why?– Without this standard, cannot provide sufficient Presence Service– Driving use case was emergency service calls (Enhanced 911)

• GeoPriv Working Group in IETF developed a GML GeoShapeApplication Schema for use in internet standards.– Approved as OGC Best Practices paper, December 2006

• Now a mandatory requirement for expressing location in a variety of internet standards (SIP, ECRIT, RADIUS).



OGC and NENA –US National Emergency Numbering Authority

• OGC Staff participating in several Next Generation 911 Working groups– NG – 911 is the next generation emergency calling and dispatch

architecture (known as i3)– Designed to work with both landlines and the mobile, wireless world.

• PIDF-LO a key internet standard that is mandatory to implement

• The Data Modeling Working Group defined a GIS interchange data mode. The encoding is GML 3.2.1

• Another working group has specified Web Feature Service (WFS) as the mandatory interface for accessing feature data using the GIS model encoding.

• They are now interesting in OGC Geosync work© 2012, Open Geospatial Consortium


Open Mobile Alliance (OMA)

• First collaborated with the mobile standards community in 2001 – Location Interoperability Forum (LIF)

• OGC Staff and Member organizations collaborated on Mobile Location Platform API (MLP). Uses GML 2.2 for all geometry and coordinate reference systems. Approved as OMA standard in 2004. Now in revision. They wish to upgrade to GML 3.2

• OMA has a new Mobile Augmented Reality working group. OGC has been asked to collaborate. OGC provided report on OGC AR related activities to OMA in Early November 2011.



W3C

• Over the years, OGC staff and Members have participated in W3C Incubator projects– Geosemantics– Sensor system semantics

• More recently, very much involved in – Point of Interest. Defining PoI model ISO 19107 is basis of geometry

elements in the model. Content model consistent with OGC/ISO work. GML is a preferred encoding.

– Data Provenance. Define a model for data provenance. OGC has provided geospatial use cases and review of committee drafts.



Alliances - Web3D Consortium

• Open standards for 3D interexchange and presentation across networks

• OGC / Web3D collaboration – Viewing / presentation services

for 3D urban models

Standards: OGC Web Map Service, OGC Web Feature Service, OGC OpenLS, Web3D Viewing Service*, OGC Web Processing Service, OASIS Standard: Business Process Execution Language (BPEL)

Source: Alexander Zipf, University of Bonn



Alliances - Web3D Collaboration

• City of Heidelberg, Germany

• Data model in OGC CityGML

• Open Standards Web Services Implementation

• Leverages Web3D standards

•OGC Standards:• Web 3D Service (OGC Discussion Paper)• Geocoder (part of OpenLS Standard)• Web Processing Service (WPS)• Sensor Observation Service (SOS)• OpenLS Directory Service (OpenLS)• Web Map Service (WMS)• Web Feature Service (WFS)• Catalog Service (CS-W)• CityGML• Symbology Encoding (SE)

http://www.gdi-3d.de/ , and http://www.opengeospatial.org/press/newsletters/200810



Other activities

• IEEE (Smart Sensor) 1451 Uses a GML Point Profile

• US National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) schemas reference a range of OGC standards.

• BuildingSmart leverages OGC GML to support the translation of Building Information Models for use in geospatial applications.



OGC Involvement In EU Activities

• EO2Heaven – Earth Observation and Environmental Modelling for the Mitigation of Health Risks



Programs

OGC AlliancePartners

ISO TC211

DGIWG

OASIS

IETF

BsA / BsI

CEN287

Standards CoordinationHow Do We Optimize This Process?

Joint Advisory Group

Change Request

MOU / Liaison

Agreements

ISO TC204

IEEE TC9

Others…

Public

00000

SpecialInterestGroup(SIG)

SpecialInterestGroup(SIG)

.

WorkingGroup(WG)

TechnicalCommittee

PlanningCommittee

StandardsLiaison

StandardsLiaison

Sub-Committee

Sub-Committee

Sub-Committee

LiaisonsStandards

Liaison

StandardsLiaison

Liaisons

OGC National and Regional Forum Activities

CEN287

OGC Global Advisory Council

InteroperabilityProgram

StandardsLiaison

StandardsLiaison

Initiatives



Fundamental Challenges

• Responsiveness in addressing standards requirements and lifecycle maintenance– Timely registration of user community requirements for new and

existing standards– Timely assessment, testing and feedback– Harmonization of work – Appropriate release cycle

• Addressing local to regional requirements in a global process

• Optimizing cooperation amongst SDO’s



Major Considerations

• Interoperability / standards requirements – understanding community Impacts– Policy / legal / program context– Priorities, due dates– Clearly identified authority

• Testing, Validation and Feedback– As early as possible– Harmonization – Persistent infrastructure

• Effective and efficient coordination among standards bodies



Summary

• OGC advancing implementation level standards that have benefitted the European and international user community

• European membership heavily influences OGC international standards development and testing programs

• Improved coordination amongst CEN/ISO/OGC will be useful in addressing standards needs for Europe

• Early, well-defined, and formal articulation of standards requirements in a program, policy and legal context is critical if we are to be responsive

• Test early, test often


Making Location Count…40

MerciSlides prepared by:

Mark ReichardtPresident & [email protected]+1 301 840-1361

Carl Reed, PhDCTO and TC Chair [email protected]+1 970 402 0284

Presented by:Philippe DelclauxMember of the OGC Board of [email protected]

www.opengeospatial.orgwww.myogc.org


Additional Slides


Making Location Count…42

®

Example: Addressing Security

• Need: Securely exchange authentication information to allow authorized individuals, or processes operating on their behalf, to access, read, write, create, or delete information.

•Service layer is on top OGC services (data / processing..)

•Security Implementation requires combination of different technologies: SAML, SOAP, HTTPS, XACML / GeoXACML, Shibboleth, etc. to address ISO 10181 frameworks:

–Access Control - Confidentiality,

–Non-Repudiation - Integrity

–Security Audit and Alarms



Example: How OGC Addresses Security

• Need: Securely exchange authentication information to allow authorized individuals, or processes operation on their behalf, to access, read, write, create or delete information.

• Service layer is on top of OGC Services (data/processing..)

• Security implementation requires combination of different technologies (SAML, SOAP, HTTPS, XACML / GeoXACML, Shibboleth, etc) to address ISO 10181 frameworks:– Access Control - Confidentiality– Non-Repudiation - Integrity– Security Audit and Alarms

• We work routinely with other SDOs advancing security solutions

43



OGC experience With Security

Security and Open Geospatial Consortium

This is an OGC Standard!

OGC in the SDO environment

Documents

Transcript of OGC in the SDO environment