Personal tools

2006-02-08 FGDC Standards Working Group meeting

Meeting notes

What
  • Subcommittee/Working Group Meeting
When Feb 08, 2006
from 09:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Where Northrop Grumman/TASC
Contact Name
Contact Phone 1 703 648 4627
Attendees Anne O'Connor
Sam Bacharach
Ed Wells
Kevin Kirby
Robin Fegeas
Carl Anderson
Dave Soller
Julie Maitra
Margarete Heber
Barry Reff
Charles Roswell
Randy Fusaro
John Moeller
Bill Wilen
Kevin Mullane
John Evans
Tricia Gibbons
Ed Wells
Add event to calendar Download this event in vCal format vCal
Download this event in iCal format iCal

FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE

Standards Working Group

Wednesday, February 8, 2006
9 AM – Noon ET
Northrop Grumman/TASC Independence Center
15036 Conference Center Drive Chantilly, VA 20151

Welcome/Introductions

Julie Maitra convened the meeting of the FGDC Standards Working Group at 9:10 AM.   Meeting attendees introduced themeselves.

Status of FGDC Standards

Ms. Maitra noted that there were two documents up for vote today:

  1. Final draft Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization
  2. Proposal for National Standards and Quality Components for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat Mapping

She also introduced the topic of a systematic review of the FGDC Standards program of work.

Announcements

Ms. Maitra discussed the INCITS L1/U.S. TAG held on Tuesday, February 7.   She noted that INCITS L1 ballots for standards prepared by Census had closed.  Several of these standards were withdrawn Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS).   Ms. Maitra also mentioned that INCITS L1 voted to extend the review and ballot period for the Framework Data Standard until April 7, as the minimum 30-day review and ballot period did not give members adequate opportunity to review the draft standards and adjudicated comments.

Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic  Map Symbolization

Ms. Maitra was the only person to complete a review of the final draft Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization.   She commended the Geologic Data Subcommittee for working closely with the American Association of State Geologists (AASG) in the development of this standard.   Her main concern was consistency with other standards. 

Information technology - Homeland Security Mapping Standard - Point Symbology for Emergency Management, which is being processed as an American National Standard, also has hazard symbols.   Meeting attendees noted that the two standards have different audiences; also, the symbology in Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization is intended for printing maps, while the symbology in the standard for Point Symbology for Emergency Management is intended for display on portable devices.

Ms. Maitra asked about the relationship of the final draft Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization with the OpenGIS® Styled Layer Descriptor (SLD) Implementation Specification.   Sam Bacharach said that the SLD affects only coding - not the representation of a symbol set.   Carl Anderson volunteered to try using SLD if Dave Soller provided a file in PostScript or Illustrator.

Ms. Maitra noted that the Geologic Data Subcommittee added many new symbols in response to reviewers' comments.  She also said that the comment adjudication log needed to provide more explanation for editing decisions.

Ms. Maitra referred issues raised by Lindsay McClellan of National Park Service to Dave Soller.   Mr. McClellan had told Ms. Maitra that the president, AASG should be contacted to verify that AASG supports the standard and had also asked if the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) had been involved in the development of the standard.   Dave Soller said that he would notify AASG leadership about the status of the draft standard and said that the Geologic Data Subcommittee had placed announcements about development of the draft geologic map symbolization in various geology newsletters.

The FGDC Standards Working Group voted to recommend the final draft of the Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization for Coordination Group approval, pending a comparison of hazard symbols in this standard with hazard symbols in Information technology - Homeland Security Mapping Standard - Point Symbology for Emergency Management and the completion of recommended changes to the comments log.

Proposal for National Standards and Quality Components for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat Mapping

Prior to the presentation on the proposal for National Standards and Quality Components for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat Mapping, Bill Wilen asked the attendees if the Riparian Mapping Standard qualifies as a national standard, as its geographic area of application is limited.  After some discussion, attendees agreed that the scope of the standard was based on natural phenomena, rather than place: therefore, the Riparian Mapping Standard qualifies as a national standard.

Margaret Heber of EPA gave the presentation on the proposal for National Standards and Quality Components for Wetlands and Deepwater  Habitat Mapping.   The proposed standard would extend the FGDC-endorsed National Vegetation Classifciation Standard.

Reviews of the proposal were submitted by Julie Maitra and David Stein.   Ms. Maitra commended the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee for coordination with the Association of State Wetlands Managers.   Ms. Maitra noted the absence of reference to "Quality Components" in the proposal, while Mr. Stein noted the absence of reference to "Deepwater Habitat" in the proposal.   Ms. Heber said that she would edit the proposal to delete reference to quality components and deepwater

Ms. Heber emphasized the need for partnerships to develop the standard and maintain a wetlands map of the United States.  John Moeller recommended contacting NatureServe and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), while Ms. Maitra recommended coordination with the FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee.

The FGDC Standards Working Group voted to add the project to develop National Standards for Wetlands Mapping to the FGDC standards program of work.

Report on URISA review of Street Address Data Standard, Working Draft 2.0

Carl Anderson of Fulton County, Georgia gave an update on the draft Street Address Data Standard.   The review of the Street Address Data Stadard Working Draft 2.0 closed January 15, 2006.  Carl said that many Federal government agencies, including Census, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense, submitted comments during this review.   No reviews had been received from software vendors such as TeleAtlas and NavTech.   Carl said that URISA was trying to work with Tribal organizations on addressing on Native American lands.

Systematic review of FGDC Standards program of work

Ms. Maitra is initiating a review of all projects in the FGDC standards program of work with the support of Tricia Gibbons of LEAD Alliance.  This review covers those standards that the FGDC have endorsed and those projects that are in various stages of development.

Directive #9, Maintenance, mandates a periodic review of FGDC-endorsed standards every five years: however, most of the endorsed standards have been on the books for five years or more. We plan to approach all maintenance authorities to determine if the standard should be reissued as-is, revised with minor changes, revised with major changes (in which it goes through all 12 steps of the FGDC standards process), or withdrawn.

Many of the standards in development have not advanced since the FGDC Standards Working Group approved the proposal. Some of these projects may have been overcome by other activities such as development of the Framework Data Standard. We plan to approach all standards development groups (typically FGDC Subcommittees and Working Groups) to see if they plan to advance their project in the coming year or decide to withdraw it.

Tricia Gibbons proposed reviewing the FGDC standards program of work in phases, beginning with the oldest standards.   Another option might be reviewing all parts of a mulitpart standard at the same time, for example, all parts of the Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) or the Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standard.

After some discussion, Ms. Gibbons requested that FGDC Standards Working Group members draw up some guidance questions to pose to maintenance authorities and standards development groups.    Questions suggested by meeting attendees include:

  • Should the standard be submitted for processing as an American National Standard (ANS)?
  • Are there existing ISO or ANSI or other voluntary consensus standards that cover this subject?
  • Is there a need for this standard?
  • Do we need to expand our stakeholders beyond Federal agencies?

Meeting attendees are tasked to submit guidance questions to the FGDC standards forum by COB Friday, February 17, 2005.   Ms. Gibbons and Ms. Maitra ("Tricia and Julie") will compile the results the following week and distribute them by Friday, February 25, 2005.

Report on Data Registries Task Group

Kevin Kirby and Ms. Maitra reported on the telecon for the data registries task group.  The test case would be setting up a registry for hydrologic unit codes.
The task group also agreed that a proposal to seek FGDC endorsement of ISO 19135:2005, Geographic information -- Procedures for item registration should be submitted for review by the FGDC Standards Working Group.

Wrap-up

Next SWG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2006




Last Updated: Feb 16, 2006 04:08 PM
Spinner Image