Feb 08, 2006
from 09:00 AM to 12:00 PM
|Contact Name||Julie Maitra|
|Contact Phone||1 703 648 4627|
|Add event to calendar||
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
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:
- Final draft Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization
- 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.
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 Several of these standards were withdrawn Federal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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Next SWG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2006