ISO FORM 1
ISO TS/P 312
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FIELD OF TECHNICAL ACTIVITYPROPOSER:DATE OF CIRCULATION:

DIN and ANSI

2023-05-31
CLOSING DATE FOR VOTING:
2023-08-23

A proposal for a new field of technical activity shall be submitted to the Office of the CEO, which will process
the proposal in accordance with ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Clause 1.5.
Furthermore, a proposal will be considered as complete if every information field is complete and follows theguidelines for proposing and justifying a new field of activity given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C.
TITLE(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.2)
Data-Driven Agrifood Systems
SCOPE(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.3)
Standardization in the field of big-picture, data-driven, principled-decision-making, multi-objective
optimization of agricultural and food systems. This includes interoperability challenges such as:• Agrisemantics1;•

Sustainability models, metrics and data in agrifood systems;•

Livestock activities data management•

Greenhouse, controlled environment, and urban farming

Excluded: standardization covered by ISO/TC 34 “Food Products” and ISO/TC 23 SC 19 “Agricultural
Electronics”. A strategic objective of the proposed Data-Driven Agrifood Systems committee is to concentrateexpertise on data management to serve as a resource for other relevant committees and where appropriate,
work in liaison and in joint projects with existing committees

PURPOSE AND JUSTIFICATION (Please use the field immediately below or attach an annex.)(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.13)

1 Agrisemantics is a branch of semantic web technologies that seeks to develop and promote the implementation/use of standardized
vocabularies, ontologies and other semantic resources to represent agricultural data and information. Thus, agrisemantics aims to create
a “common language” for describing and sharing agricultural data across different platforms and systems, making it easier to find, access,interoperate with, and reuse.

Agriculture is a vitally important human activity. As the human population of the world grows in the context ofover-used arable land and fresh water, increasing crop productivity is imperative for well-being and foodsecurity. Moreover, this productivity increase must be balanced with sustainability and regulatory compliance,
and take place despite climate change, market volatility, and political instability, while pursuing increasingly
tighter integration into the end-to-end, input-manufacturer-to-dinner-plate agrifood system.
Modern information technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things) have been presented
as components of a solution to the challenge of increasing agricultural productivity at scale in an
economically, ecologically and socially sustainable way. This potential, however, has been severely limited bydata interoperability concerns. The guiding principle inspiring this proposal (represented in literature such as
GODAN’s “A Global Data Ecosystem for Agriculture and Food”, available online here) is that, bystandardizing the data being exchanged across agrifood system value chains, interoperability will increase
and the benefits of sustainable agriculture will be available to agrifood producers worldwide. This will beespecially true if the standardization effort follows an inclusive approach that considers smallholders and theirtechnology providers as communities that must be served by the new standards, in addition to the more
traditional equipment and crop input manufacturers, large corporate farms, etc.
While ISO has multiple Technical Committees and Subcommittees whose work intersects the agrifood
systems domain, the organization’s generally bottom-up approach does not to date provide a comprehensiveplanning and management perspective that supports data-driven principled decision-making in the multiobjective context of agrifood systems. Moreover, much of the existing standardization work, while excellent
from a domain (e.g., analytical, or process description) point of view, does not directly address the matter ofstandardizing data in agrifood systems (e.g., the observations and measurements used as decision-making
inputs throughout the system), particularly the digital representation and communication of these data.
The proposed technical committee is meant to address data interoperability in agrifood systems at scale, bothby providing a holistic, systems-oriented view and reference architecture for the domain, and by developing(and coordinating) standards to fill standardization gaps. The proposed technical activities will complement
and strengthen existing ISO activities and are in line with ISO STRATEGY 2030, ISO’s commitment toachieve the climate agenda by 2050 (London declaration) and the UN SDGs.
Additional sources of motivation for the existence of this TC include :1. In the absence of an agrifood-data-specific TC, there would not be a domain-centric source for
ongoing direction for the Smart Farming Coordination Committee proposed by the ISO Strategic
Advisory Group on Smart Farming (SAG-SF) in Recommendation 3.1.4 of its final report.
2. The standards landscape in smart farming across the world is fragmented, incomplete, andsusceptible to poorly coordinated efforts. The SAG-SF recommended the creation of a multiorganization landscaping and coordination group (See Recommendation 3.1.5 in its final report), but
ISO will need technical domain input in order to fully participate in that effort; the proposed TC would
be able to provide much of that, i.e., the aspects related to agrifood systems data.
3.

There will be an increasing number of data-related standards in the future; fitting them into thecurrent ISO structure would be inadequate, as it will tend to place the standards in TCs / SCs thatlack a high concentration of agricultural data expertise.

PROPOSED INITIAL PROGRAMME OF WORK (Please use the field immediately below or attach an annex)
Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C.4.4 and C-4.5)
For each item, the initial work programme shall define the deliverable type and target dates. The initial work
programme shall also assign priorities to the different items.
a.) ISO Standard to enable conformance assessment of FAIR Data Principles•

ISO standard(s) for assessing the conformance of data, data exchange, and data exchange
processes to the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR).
Collaboration can be envisaged with ISO/TC 184 and SC4 in support of developing high-quality data.

•

The SAG-SF roadmap places the start of this work in 2024.

b.) ISO Standard for Reference Architecture for Smart Farming•

A standard for a reference architecture to describe generic smart farming data system characteristics,
a conceptual model, a reference model and a number of architectural views aligned with thearchitectural approach defined in ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010•

This work would be done in consultation with JTC 1/SC 41 and patterned after ISO/IEC 30141:2018(Internet of Things (IoT) — Reference Architecture) developed by that subcommittee.

•

The SAG-SF roadmap places the start of this work in 2024, associated with an international
workshop on the reference architecture, to be begun in 2023.

c.) ISO Standard on Data Type Registry (Semantic Infrastructure)•

Develop and share a standard that defines and enables the sharing of agricultural data typedefinitions thorough appropriate data type registries, manifested as APIs, SPARQL endpoints, andother similar technologies. The definitions themselves can follow the model laid out in CD 7673-2 andthe registries can follow patterns laid out in ISO 19135 for administration and governance.

•

The SAG-SF roadmap places the start of this work in 2024.

d.) ISO Model and Controlled Vocabulary of Crops•

Develop a standard to define a data model for the concept of “crop”, representing an extended, albeit
analogous version to the machine-oriented idea presented in ISO 11783-10. This standard would
recognize (at least) the following aspects of a crop:• Botanical component (e.g., one or more botanical taxa)• Refinement component: non-taxonomic physical and physiological features of the organism,
as well as other attributes that may contextualize it in the food system (e.g. bearing a specifictrait/gene, or not suitable for human consumption)• Intended use component (e.g., fresh / processing)• Geopolitical context•

Enable a controlled vocabulary of these crop objects to be stored inside a registry. Make thisavailable to the public in the form of machine-actionable data, through an electronic registry (e.g. a
RESTful API). This implies creating a relationship with an organization that can host this registry andestablish an architecture and governance system as per ISO 19135.

•

Help put in place the community to govern the vocabulary•

A similar effort was established and put forward by VDMA (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- undAnlagenbau) - a German mechanical and plant engineering association - to deliver a human-readable
data dictionary for the ISO 11783 standard (see www.isobus.net). However, in order to enable smart
farming at scale, we propose that the data are made machine-readable and machine-actionable.

•

It is important to recognize that there will be geopolitical context – dependent variations. This
semantic infrastructure is meant to be a reference to which other systems can map. The registry
should include mechanisms for actors to assert/manage relationships among different entries.

•

This standard should be considered a candidate for the IEC-ISO Standards Machine Applicable
Readable and Transferable (SMART) program.

•

The SAG-SF roadmap places the start of this work in 2024.

RELATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO EXISTING INERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND ON-GOING
STANDARDIZATION WORK☒ The proposer has checked whether the proposed scope of the new committee overlaps with the scope ofany existing ISO or IEC committee or JTC1 sub-committee☒

If an overlap or the potential for overlap is identified, the affected committee has been informed and an
agreement has been reached between proposer and committee on
i. modification/restriction of the scope of the proposal to avoid overlapping,ii. potential modification/restriction of the scope of the existing committee to avoid overlapping.

☐

If agreement with the existing committee has not been reached, please explain why the proposal should
be approved.

Click or tap here to enter text.
☐

Have proposals on this subject been submitted into an existing committee and rejected? If so, what were
the reasons for rejection?

Click or tap here to enter text.
LISTING OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (SUCH AS STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS) AT
INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.6)
Final Report of the ISO Strategic Advisory Group on Smart Farming, February 2023
ISO 11783-10
ISO 19156, ISO 19157, ISO 19115, ISO 19135
ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010
ISO 8000 Data quality series and specifically on:•

data governance, data quality management and maturity assessment; ISO 8000-61 specifies aprocess reference model for data quality management.

•

creating and applying requirements for data and information; ISO 8000-110 specifies how to
exchange characteristic data that are master data.

•

monitoring and measuring information and data quality; ISO 8000-8 specifies approaches tomeasuring information and data quality.

•

improving data and, consequently, information quality; ISO/TS 8000-81 specifies an approach to data
profiling, which identifies opportunities to improve data quality.

•

issues that are specific to the type of content in a data set; ISO/TS 8000-311 specifies how toaddress quality considerations for product shape data.
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
LISTING OF RELEVANT COUNTRIES WHERE THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPORTANT TO
THEIR NATIONAL COMMERCIAL INTERESTS(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.8)
The topic is relevant for agricultural countries in general. A sizable sample of 20 countries demonstrated thisby providing experts that participated in the ISO Strategic Advisory Group for Smart Farming: Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom, United States ofAmerica. These countries represent nearly half of the world’s arable land.
Arguably the topic is even more important to developing countries where the population is growing, arable
land is shrinking, and crop/livestock productivity per unit area is relatively low (e.g., much of Sub-SaharanAfrica).
LISTING OF RELEVANT EXTERNAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OR INTERNAL PARTIES(OTHER THAN ISO AND/OR IEC COMMITTEES) TO BE ENGAGED AS LIASONS IN THIS WORK
(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Clause C.4.9)
AgGateway, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CGIAR, FAO, VDMA, DEVCO, ITU Focus Group "Artificial
Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) for Digital Agriculture" (FG-AI4A), IEEE, CIGR, UNECE
Regarding ISO and/or IEC committees , the following stand out as valuable liaisons for the proposed
technical committee:•

ISO/TC 23 SC 6 (Equipment for crop protection)

•

ISO/TC 23 SC 7 (Equipment for harvesting and conservation)•

ISO/TC 23 SC 18 (Irrigation and drainage equipment and systems)•

ISO/TC 23 SC 19 (Agricultural electronics)•

ISO/TC 34 Food Products•

ISO/TC 34 SC 17 Management Systems for Food Safety (and others)•

ISO/TC 134 (Fertilizers, soil conditioners and beneficial substances)•

ISO/TC 154 (Processes, data elements and documents in commerce, industry, and administration)•

ISO/TC 184 (Automation systems and integration)•

ISO/TC 184 SC 4 (Industrial data)•

ISO/TC 190 (Soil quality)•

ISO/TC 207 Environmental Management•

ISO/TC 211 Geographical Information Systems•

ISO/TC 234 (Fisheries and aquaculture)•

ISO/TC 268 (Sustainable cities and communities)•

ISO/TC 299 (Robotics)•

ISO/TC 331 WG 2 Biodiversity: Measurement, data, monitoring and assessment•

JTC 1 SC 41 (IoT and Digital Twin)•

ISO/CASCO•

ISO/DEVCOIDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT AFFECTED STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES(Please see ISO Connect)
Benefits/Impacts/Examples

Industry and commerce – large industry

Large companies that participate in the agrifood
sector at scale (input manufacturers, equipment
companies, etc.) will likely benefit fromstandardization that would help them better
improve interoperability in different countries.
Food and beverage companies, under consumer
pressure to show evidence of sustainably grownproduce, create incentives for data sharing.
Doing this at scale requires farm-to-fork
interoperability. This means the information fromthe first production process needs to beaccessible and efficiently transferred to allparties requiring it.
It would be beneficial to have representation in
the TC from food companies, large input (seed,crop protection, fertilizer, feed, pharma)
manufacturers and distributors, and equipment(tractors, irrigation systems, harvesters,
sprayers, etc.) companies. Representatives
would optimally be well-versed in processes in
the agrifood systems, the data that is created,
stored, exchanged, and used to drive decisions,and on approaches to representing those da ta.

Industry and commerce – SMEs

Small and medium enterprises in particular
benefit from data standardization, as they may
not have the financial resources or market shareto compete with large market actors with
proprietary data formats and solutions .
Three particular categories of stakeholders inthis sector stand out as especially desirable forrepresentation in the TC:•

Agricultural producers, large and small.
Larger producers employ IT professionals that could participate in the TC;
additionally, commodity groups andgrower associations should be approached for representation. It is also of
key importance to represent the interestsof the smallest growers, i.e., smallholders; please see the “Other” category
below for more detail on this group.

•

Agricultural and food technology
providers such as software companies
creating decision- and discussion-support
tools for producers and other actors.

•

Agronomists and other advisors that
producers trust and exchange data with(e.g., retailers, crop insurance agents).

Government

Pursuing interoperability is a political option foraction, but it is also a state duty to guarantee
user rights. Competition law and initiatives suchas the EU’s Digital Markets Act presuppose
freedom of choice for users, which ismeaningless if they cannot move data among
competing systems.
For the rights to freedom of choice and data
portability to be effectively implemented, states
must expand their design mandate and, loosely
based on the guiding principle that “code is law”,
increasingly integrate interoperability standards
and technical protocols into their legislation.
Government extension personnel who seek toprovide services to producers at scale would bevaluable representatives in the TC. It would also
be valuable to receive government input
regarding direct-reporting initiatives that impact
equipment, farm management information
systems, and so forth.

Consumers

A major benefit of data-driven farming and foodsystems for consumers is a more transparent
and traceable method of food production allowing consumers to decide whether food meets
their ethical and environmental requirements.
The SAG-SF’s Recommendation 3.1.9 emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement
for assessing and addressing the interoperabilityof ISO agrifood system standards. Engaging
consumer groups that participate in supply chaintransparency initiatives could provide valuable
input for the TC effort.

LabourRepetitive and physically demanding work canbe reduced through automation using data.
The SAG-SF’s Recommendation 3.1.9 emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement
for assessing and addressing the interoperabilityof ISO agrifood system standards. Engaging
labor groups that participate in occupationalsafety and health transparency initiatives could
provide valuable input for the TC effort.

Academic and research bodies

Universities and their funders often expend
considerable resources to fund very promisingresearch that is ultimately not impactful because
the resulting tools (e.g., decision-support aids)
cannot scale or interoperate with existing
industry platforms. Moreover, the companies
responsible for said platforms do not have clear
incentives to invest in integrating with marketunproven tools. Using standardization to makethe tools interoperable and easy to integrate withcould dramatically lower barriers to adoption.

Standards application businesses

Enabling data interoperability through standards
is a key to making processes more observableand controllable, thus creating more opportunity
for standards application businesses in theagrifood sector.
The SAG-SF’s Recommendation 3.1.9 emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement
for assessing and addressing the interoperabilityof ISO agrifood system standards.
Recommendation 3.1.10 encourages enablingsmaller actors to implement standards byleveraging user communities.
In light of the previous points, engaging
standardization consultants and third-party
conformance assessment groups, as well as
user communities of agrifood system standards
would provide valuable input for the TC effort.

Non-governmental organizations

Having standardized mechanisms for technology
providers, advisors, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), extension services, etc.
to integrate their tools and data collection
mechanisms with a learning framework as
proposed in Clause 3.4.30 of the ISO SAG-SF
final report would be very advantageous to help
make data more usable.
The SAG-SF’s Recommendation 3.1.9 emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement
for assessing and addressing the interoperabilityof ISO agrifood system standards. Engaging
NGOs that work with producers (e.g.,technology-oriented farmer groups) and othersegments of the industry (e.g., sustainability
consortia, pollinator advocacy groups, etc.)
could provide valuable input for the TC effort.

Other (please specify)

Smallholders in developing countries have a lot
to gain from involvement in the field of datadriven agrifood systems; the businesscapabilities enabled by this approach to foodproduction can mitigate the impact of climatechange on their food security and income.
Data-driven agrifood systems are very likely to
reduce the barriers of interoperability and makeagronomic and market advice more accessible
and affordable to the smallholder, which in turncan lead to higher productivity, food security andincome for the smallholder, as well as reducing
the food insecurity for the surrounding
population.
Data-driven services afford multiple
opportunities to smallholders:• Access to financial services, such as banking,money transfer, credit, and micro-loans•

Access to risk management instruments suchas crop insurance•

Access to market data, such as productrequirements, pricing/selling, buyer location•

Land and crop allocation optimization inplanning, field operations and going-to-market•

Weather forecasts and alerts•

Asking questions and receiving expert advice

Engaging individual smallholders in the TC’s
activities is impractical and unlikely to yield any
direct short-term benefit to the smallholders
themselves. There are, however, organizations
that work with, and provide services tosmallholders that should be engaged in the TC’s
activities (technology adoption organizations,microlenders, etc.)

EXPRESSION OF LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT FROM THE PROPOSER(Please see the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex C, Clause C.4.12)
DIN has committed to managing the secretariat of the proposed TC on Data-Driven Agrifood Systems;
ANSI has committed to staffing the position of the TC chair.

☒ The proposer confirms that this proposal has been drafted in compliance with iso/iec directives,
part 1, annex c
SIGNATURE OF THE PROPOSER
DIN
ANSI

COMMENTS OF THE ISO CENTRAL OFFICE (IF ANY)
Click or tap here to enter text.