OASIS Emergency Management TC

Just to weigh in on this dialogue and using the OGC to provide some 
perspective.

The OGC has invested considerable time and effort in defining, documenting, 
and approving a variety of documents related to naming, vocabularies, 
metadata, and registries and so forth. This includes close collaboration 
with ISO TC-211 and the IETF. Obviously, this work is from a geospatial 
perspective. However, the following might be of interest in terms of 
providing additional input into this dialogue.

The OGC has a set of documents called the Abstract Specification. These 
documents describe the information and reference models for a variety of 
topics for geospatial content and services. These topics include geospatial 
information domains such as metadata, features, registries, spatial 
referencing by coordinates, and most recently geo-digital rights 
managements. If we look more closely at metadata, the OGC and ISO have 
agreed that ISO 19115 is the international standard for expressing 
geo-metadata. In that document, there is considerable reference to ISO 
11179.

For example:
The entities and elements within the data dictionary are defined by seven 
attributes (those attributes are listed below and are based on those 
specified in ISO/IEC 11179-3 for the description of data element concepts, 
i.e. data elements without representation). The term "dataset" when used as 
part of a definition is synonymous with all types of geographic data 
resources (aggregations of datasets, individual geographic features and the 
various classes that compose a feature).

This approach is independent of the actual NDR used. The OGC approach to 
registries is also grounded in the work of ISO.

The reason for this input is a follow-on to Sukumar's concern. As is 
Sukumar, I am not opposed to the NIEM NDR. However, there does need to be 
due diligence. Further, one issue I have is the NIEM may be perceived as US 
centric. OASIS is an international organization that is working on 
international standards. Finally, while I may be off base here (and Sukumar 
please correct me if I am), but to do this type of analysis we need an 
information model.

Sorry about the length, but this topic is very similar to discussion we are 
having in the OGC about the OGC NID, naming authorities, registries, and 
governance of these things.

Cheers

Carl




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                
                                                
                                            

Thanks Carl,

It is helpful to know this. The OGC issues are the same kind if not 
the same domain of question that we need to answer.

Cheers,
Rex

At 10:06 AM -0700 11/2/06, Carl Reed OGC Account wrote:
>Just to weigh in on this dialogue and using the OGC to provide some 
>perspective.
>
>The OGC has invested considerable time and effort in defining, 
>documenting, and approving a variety of documents related to naming, 
>vocabularies, metadata, and registries and so forth. This includes 
>close collaboration with ISO TC-211 and the IETF. Obviously, this 
>work is from a geospatial perspective. However, the following might 
>be of interest in terms of providing additional input into this 
>dialogue.
>
>The OGC has a set of documents called the Abstract Specification. 
>These documents describe the information and reference models for a 
>variety of topics for geospatial content and services. These topics 
>include geospatial information domains such as metadata, features, 
>registries, spatial referencing by coordinates, and most recently 
>geo-digital rights managements. If we look more closely at metadata, 
>the OGC and ISO have agreed that ISO 19115 is the international 
>standard for expressing geo-metadata. In that document, there is 
>considerable reference to ISO 11179.
>
>For example:
>The entities and elements within the data dictionary are defined by 
>seven attributes (those attributes are listed below and are based on 
>those specified in ISO/IEC 11179-3 for the description of data 
>element concepts, i.e. data elements without representation). The 
>term "dataset" when used as part of a definition is synonymous with 
>all types of geographic data resources (aggregations of datasets, 
>individual geographic features and the various classes that compose 
>a feature).
>
>This approach is independent of the actual NDR used. The OGC 
>approach to registries is also grounded in the work of ISO.
>
>The reason for this input is a follow-on to Sukumar's concern. As is 
>Sukumar, I am not opposed to the NIEM NDR. However, there does need 
>to be due diligence. Further, one issue I have is the NIEM may be 
>perceived as US centric. OASIS is an international organization that 
>is working on international standards. Finally, while I may be off 
>base here (and Sukumar please correct me if I am), but to do this 
>type of analysis we need an information model.
>
>Sorry about the length, but this topic is very similar to discussion 
>we are having in the OGC about the OGC NID, naming authorities, 
>registries, and governance of these things.
>
>Cheers
>
>Carl
>
>
>

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original Message ----- From: "Sukumar Dwarkanath" 
>