A Guide to the Role of Standards inGeospatial Information
Management
Table of Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Direction Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Standards Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Emerging Standards and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Strategy for Standards Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Understanding [Organizational Standards] Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
User Needs Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Managing the Geospatial Data Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Functions and Needs by Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Planning for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Institutional Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4. Taking Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Foundational Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Tier 1 - Share Maps Internally and Over the Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Tier 2 - Geospatial Information Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Tier 3 - Spatially Enabling the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Tier 4 – Future Capabilities: Spatial Data Integrated with Global Data Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5. Ongoing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Standards Review Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Communities of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6. Achieving Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Putting it all together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Success Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Standards Training, Tools and Related Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Acknowledgements:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1

Edition 3.0.0:2022-01-01,
unggim-feedback@opengeospatial.org

2

Summary
The purpose of this Guide is to promote the recommendations regarding the use of standards forgeospatial information management. The Guide complements Strategic Pathway 6 on Standards(SP6) [http://ggim.un.org/IGIF/part2.cshtml] of the Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF)[http://ggim.un.org/IGIF/] Implementation Guide, providing specific guidance and options to be taken
by countries when implementing the IGIF.This Guide and the IGIF have been developed throughextensive consultations with experts from around the world working under the auspices of theUnited Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM).
This Guide provides detailed insights on the standards and good practices necessary to establish
and maintain geospatial information management systems that are compatible and interoperablewith other systems within and across organizations. The Guide also underscores the importance ofstandards in facilitating the application of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, andReusable) data principles - promoting improved policymaking, decision making and government
effectiveness in addressing key social, economic, and environmental topics, including attainment of
Sustainable Development Goals.
The Guide addresses different target audiences and the roles they play in performing
implementations of standards, while raising awareness of the benefits and costs of engagement:• Decision makers - who need guidance and coordination to understand the benefits ofstandards and the importance of setting strategic goals to achieve increasing levels of geospatial
maturity.
• Developers of interoperable solutions - who need working knowledge about what standards
are needed and applicable in different cases, as well as methods to access the standards to takethe essential steps for implementing geospatial standards and interoperable solutions.
• Standards users - who must understand the importance of adhering to standards and toprovide feedback into the ongoing use of the implemented standards.
• Practitioners in the public and private sector and civil society - who need to know thebenefits of working with standardized data, how and why things work the way they do, and canshare experiences and standards success stories with others.
While this Guide provides guidance on the benefits of implementing current, broadly implemented
standards, it also provides insight on the importance of managing change. Standards must
continuously adapt to changes in technology and other developments. On a regular basis, the UNGGIM reviews and publishes a five to ten year vision on future trends in geospatial information
management[https://ggim.un.org/documents/DRAFT_Future_Trends_report_3rd_edition.pdf]

thatinformsreaders of upcoming developments. In the most recent version, the top geospatial industry drivers
predicted to have the greatest impact on geospatial information management over the next five toten years were identified and grouped into five categories: rise of new data sources & analyticalmethods; technological advancements; evolution of user requirements; industry structural shift;
and legislative environment. In terms of the IGIF Strategic Pathways, these drivers are expected tohave a significant impact on standardization needs.
This Guide represents the work of individuals around the world who contributed their time andexpertise in global cooperation, with the encouragement of their home nations and employers, in3some cases on a voluntary basis. As a reader of this document, we invite your participation andcontributions as your encouragement plays a crucial role in bringing your nation’s and employer’s
perspectives and insights to the geospatial community. This Guide is intended to be a living
document, regularly reviewed and updated. The authors invite you to send your feedback,suggestions, and contributions to unggim-feedback@opengeospatial.org to help us improve theutility of this Guide.

Introduction
Geographic information describes phenomena on, above or below the Earth’s surface, including
naturally occurring phenomena (e.g., rivers, rock formations, coastlines), human-made phenomena(e.g., dams, buildings, radio towers, roads), social phenomena (e.g., political boundaries, electoral
districts, population distribution) and transient phenomena (e.g., weather systems). Geographic
information is also referred to as geospatial information, geodata, geoinformation, location-based
data, or spatial information. Standards facilitate the integration of all kinds of geographic
information to enable more effective policies and decision-making. They form part of thearchitecture by which such information can be discovered, collected, published, shared, stored,
combined, and applied. Standards also enable collaborative geospatial information management
across organizations and levels of government.
Standards can serve as non-binding policy components to help advance a legal and policy
framework for geospatial information management. Adoption of standards by key stakeholders
responsible for geospatial information management will have a broad impact across the geospatial
ecosystem of a nation, organization, or information community. Standards can be made binding by
including them into requests for proposals (RFPs), tenders or contracts. However, standards shouldbe implemented according to the respective needs of a country, organization, or information
community.
This Guide complements the IGIF SP6. The IGIF provides a basis and guide for developing,
integrating, strengthening, and maximizing geospatial information management and relatedresources in all countries. In SP6, the focus is on the adoption of standards and compliancemechanisms for enabling data and technology interoperability to deliver integrated geospatial
information and to create location-based knowledge. The purpose of this Guide is to promote theeffective use of standards and to help users of standards answer the question, "Where do I start?". It
has a section for each of the six actions recommended for the initial and early stages of developing
and strengthening geospatial information management arrangements in a country, organization, or
information community (see Figure I.1).

4

Figure I.1 Actions and tools designed to assist countries to establish good practice standards andcompliance mechanisms (Adapted from IGIF SP6)

Furthermore, use cases (case studies), an integral part of this Guide, are introduced in each sectionof the document, with an expanded list of case studies also provided as an Appendix[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fr_qnz47EsDbHyaZatwdHS940QBm4b9nXT7erVg1-nk/edit?usp=sharing].
Specific guidance and options are provided for those who want to implement standards adoption
and compliance as part of an IGIF.
Even though the IGIF SP6 aims to guide country-specific action plans for standards adoption andcompliance in the context of national geospatial information management, this Guide is also useful5for other organizations, such as state and provincial governments, private sector, and non-profit
organizations. This Guide will help them to understand how their data, services and systems can beseamlessly integrated with national geospatial information and how their products and offerings
can achieve the necessary flexibility to innovate and rapidly mobilize new technologies and data
sources.
The target audience for this Guide comprises four groups representing the different roles they playin standardization. Each of the groups can be linked to one of the four Elements of Standards in the
IGIF/SP6, illustrated in Table I.1. This Guide was prepared with the aim to be understandable bythose who are relatively new to the topic of geospatial standards, as well as those proficient in theuse of standards. At the same time, this Guide provides guidance to both high-level policy anddecision-makers, as well as implementers of standards.
Table I.1 The four groups of the target audience for this Guide and their relation to the IGIF SP6 Elements ofStandards.

Roles

Link to IGIF/SP6

Required level of Activities

Relation to thisElement

understandingStandards Guide

standards
Decision makers

Governance andCan recognize the- Set government

Secondary target

Policybenefits ofpolicy framework- audience

standards, in

Allocate funding

reaching longterm goals
Developers ofTechnology

Can implement- Ensure design

Main target

interoperable

andDatastandards, Can

meets national

audience

solutionsInteroperability

develop & revise

needs andstandards

challengesParticipate instandards
development

Standards users

Compliance

Can interpret &- Participate by

Testing anduse standards

expressing needs-

Certification

Implementinternal policy toalign withendorsedstandards

6

Target audienceRolesLink to IGIF/SP6

Required level of Activities

Relation to thisElement

understandingStandards Guide

standards
Practitioners in

Community ofCan discover & use - Identify needs

the public andPractice (CoP)

standards as good for standards

private sector, andpractice

Target audience

contributing to thecivil society

Sustainable
Development
Goals (SDGs)Participate instandards
development,
adoption, andimplementation

Decision makers are responsible for the governance framework and policy environment that
support standards adoption and compliance. They also provide the resources and allocate funding.
Decision makers therefore want to understand how the benefits of standards adoption andcompliance can be maximized to achieve their strategic goals. This Guide provides examples from anumber of countries, information communities or organizations; guidance on how to develop acommon framework of national data and technology standards; and guidance on how national
requirements can be represented and addressed in the activities of international Standards
Development Organizations (SDO). Decision makers can use these examples to guide action plans
for achieving optimal outcomes and benefits. After reading the respective section in the Guide, adecision maker will be able to:• Direction setting: Understand the benefits of standards and the importance of setting strategic
goals to achieve increasing levels of geospatial maturity.
• Understanding needs: Understand which standards are available to assess and address anorganization’s needs based on geospatial maturity level or tier.
• Planning for change: Understand how other nations or organizations have implemented andused standards to meet their needs.
• Taking action: Understand the level of maturity of the nation and/or organization and thereby
the level of complexity and the potential work that needs to be done during the implementation
phase.
• Ongoing management: Authorize and resource a standards maintenance process essential for
maintaining

aneffective

national

geospatial

information

management

andsharingenvironment.
• Achieving outcomes: Understand the importance of how standards will improve sharing anduse of geospatial information and optimize geospatial information management
Developers of interoperable solutions are the primary target audience for this Guide. Theydevelop and implement technologies so that different systems and diverse data types can work
together seamlessly. They may also be involved in the development of standards or profiles thatmeet the specific needs of their countries or organizations. This Guide provides them withinformation about the different types of standards, how they facilitate interoperability, how to7

access standards and how they have been implemented in other countries, information
communities and organizations. Developers of interoperable solutions can use this Guide to planand design their own implementation or development of standards to ensure that they meet theneeds and address the challenges of their countries or organizations. After reading the respective
section in this Guide, a developer of interoperability will be able to:• Direction setting: Identify the types of standards required for increasing levels of capability andscale of collaboration and understand the role of SDOs and how to participate in standards
development.
• Understanding needs: Understand which standards are available to assess and address anorganization’s needs based on geospatial maturity level or tier, and understand how standards
are evolving along with changing needs and technologies.
• Planning for change: Understand the importance of considering and implementing standards aspart of the systems development lifecycle, and the importance of contributing to and providing
feedback to the development of standards through direct participation and provision of
feedback.
• Taking action: Understand details about what standards are needed and applicable in different
cases, how to access the standards, and how to take the essential steps to implement thosestandards.
• Ongoing management: Understand how to remain current with advancements in standards
through periodic review with standards bodies and communities of practice.
• Achieving outcomes: Understand use cases to apply rapid mobilization of new sources of data
and technologies and avoid lock-in to specific technology providers.
Standards users evaluate and select standards or standards-based products for implementation in
their countries or organizations, with the goal of achieving national or organizational goals. They
need to understand how a standard achieves interoperability and whether a standards-based
product complies and/or is certified to comply with a standard. They want to know thestandardization target for a specific standard (e.g., web service or metadata) and the kind ofinteroperability that can be achieved (e.g., system, structural, syntactic, or semantic). This Guide
provides them with information about the different types of standards, how they facilitate
interoperability and how compliance to standards is tested and certified. The Guide helps to informthe evaluation approach followed by a standards user to make sure that selected standards or
standards-based products meet the needs and address the challenges of their countries,
organizations, or information communities. Each section provides standards users with specificinsight into an effective implementation strategy:• Direction Setting: Understand the different types of standards and how they contribute tointeroperability and generate benefits.
• Understanding Needs: Understand which standards are available to assess and address anorganization’s needs based on geospatial maturity level or tier, and understanding how
standards are evolving along with changing needs and technologies.
• Planning for change: Understand the types of business needs that may be supported through theimplementation of standards, advocating for the adoption of standards to facilitate
interoperability and other efficiencies, and understand the importance of considering andimplementing standards as part of the systems development lifecycle, and the importance of8contributing to and providing feedback to the development of standards through direct
participation and provision of feedback.
• Taking action: Match the standards required to fulfill their needs to a given maturity level.
• Ongoing management: Discuss, identify, and submit requirements for standards to addressinteroperability issues through standards bodies at the organizational, national, andinternational levels.
• Achieving outcomes: Understand requirements for improved uptake of geospatial information
across government and with the private sector and citizens; and creating efficiencies in
geospatial data production and lifecycle management; saving effort, time, and cost in reusing
and repurposing data.
Practitioners in the public and private sector and civil society are often represented in different
communities of practice, groups of people with a shared interest in standards who actively
participate in the development, adoption, implementation and/or use of standards. A community
realizes the benefits of standards and interoperability by sharing and leveraging proven standardsbased good practices and training material specific to their community’s needs. A Community ofPractice (CoP) can also provide commonality across diverse uses and levels of operation, and help
promote consistent, sharable training and educational programs. This Guide provides communities
of practice with an overview of standards and standardization and suggests domain and technology
trends expected to be standardized in the future. CoPs can use this Guide to inform and plan
contributions to standards development, adoption and implementation of standards, anddevelopment of training material and educational programs. It can also serve to identify acommunity’s standardization needs that are not yet addressed. After reading the respective sectionin this Guide, members of a CoP will be able to:• Direction setting: Understand the different types of standards and how they contribute tointeroperability and generate benefits.
• Understanding needs: Understand which standards are available to assess and address anorganization’s needs based on geospatial maturity level or tier.
• Planning for change: Understand how they can play a role in the identification of opportunities
for standardization in the context of their domain, act as advocates to engage related
communities of practice to facilitate alignment and interoperability at various levels.
• Taking action: Understand the standards and provide feedback into the ongoing development of
the implemented standards.
• Ongoing management: Understand how they can share experiences and standards successstories with others.
• Achieving outcomes: Understand the benefit realization and compliance of standards with thedevelopment of indicators to assess, monitor and evaluate as part of an internal/external
auditing exercise.

91. Direction Setting
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to:* Understand the benefits of standards and the importance of setting strategic goals to achieve
increasing levels of geospatial maturity.
* Identify the types of standards required for increasing levels of capability and scale ofcollaboration.
* Understand the role of standards development organizations (SDOs) and how to participate instandards development.
* Understand the different types of standards and how they contribute to interoperability, andexamples of benefits.

Standards Awareness
When undertaking a leadership role on geospatial standards, it is important to understand thepractical use of standards and to raise awareness of the benefits of moving towards a standardsbased approach for geospatial data management at all levels of government, the private sector andacademia.

[1]

When it comes to the implementation of standards, benefits include:• Reducing cost over the lifecycle of a system or systems.
• Ensuring the ability to share data when appropriate, with respect for privacy issues.
• Enabling interoperability among systems.
• Enabling interoperable sharing and operations.
• Enabling innovation by facilitating rapid mobilization of new technologies and data sources.
• Supporting disconnected or local operations.
Interoperability is the ability to access, exchange, integrate and cooperatively use data in acoordinated manner, within and across organizational, regional, and national boundaries.

[2]

As

described in IGIF SP6, technology and data interoperability enables different technologies, systems,
and geospatial data to work together seamlessly, and provides the flexibility to rapidly mobilize
newer technologies and data sources.

What are Standards and Why are They Important?
A standard is a documented agreement between provider and consumers, established byconsensus, that provides rules, guidelines, or characteristics ensuring materials, products, andservices are fit for purpose. Behind the scenes, standards make everyday life work. They may
establish size or shape or capacity of a product, process, or system. They can specify performanceof products or personnel. They can also define terms so that there is no misunderstanding among
those using the standard.

Standards Save Time, Money, and Lives

10

Figure 1.1 Aftermath of the 1904 Great Baltimore Fire (source: Wikipedia)

In 1904, much of the City of Baltimore in the United States was destroyed by a massive fire.
Firefighters from hundreds of kilometers away were sent to assist Baltimore firefighters during theheight of the blaze. They could do little to help because the fire hose size and threads used bydifferent responders were not standardized for compatibility with Baltimore fire hydrants

[3]

. The

resultant inability to connect hoses to fire hydrants turned hundreds of firefighters into spectators.
This analogy rings true not just in respect of the need to share geospatial information, such as
disaster imagery, during a crisis but throughout all implementations of geospatial technologies.
Standards make uniformity, compatibility, and interoperability possible for electronic devices,
software applications, and processes in all sectors of a global economy.
Without standards, the ability to connect systems, data, people, hardware, software, andprocedures becomes difficult and inefficient. Loss of time, assets and lives is inevitable.
A recent example of the value of standards was brought to the surface by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Addresses provide one of the most common and unambiguous ways to identify and locate objects,
and assist services such as postal delivery, emergency response, marketing, mapping, utility
planning and land administration. Addresses and address data turned out to be crucial in the fightagainst COVID-19 because they enabled contact tracing and identification of cluster outbreaks. Nonstandardized addresses significantly hinder the response to COVID-19. The multi-part International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19160 Addressing Standard supports a variety of
stakeholders so that accurate and reliable address data can be made available. The different partsof ISO 19160 cover topics such as terminology and a conceptual data model for addressing; goodpractices for address assignment and maintenance; quality of address data; and international
postal addressing (jointly developed with the Universal Postal Union).

The Case for Open Standards
Open standards facilitate interoperability and data exchange among different products or services
intended for widespread adoption. Standards and specifications define requirements to ensure that
products and data are consistent in accuracy, structure, format, style, and content.

[4]Standards

development is a process that requires consensus among stakeholders. Open standards are acentral element in the growing trend towards effective government.
Open international standards are voluntary consensus-driven standards published by the SDOs.
Open standards[5]

are developed, approved, and maintained via a collaborative and consensus-

driven process and made available to the general public. These standards are aimed at achieving
legal, data, semantic and/or technical interoperability. Furthermore, open standards offer users theopportunity to have a voice in building and learning about the standards. Apart from standards, the11

SDOs offer other types of open documents and services, such as specifications and reports, torespond to urgent market needs or to address work still under technical development.
The main focus of the IGIF SP6 and this Guide is on open international geospatial standards.
However, other means of information sharing that may lead to or supplement standards are also
described in this subsection:
Specifications generally offer an interoperability solution similar to that of standards, but are notnecessarily developed in the same voluntary, consensus-based process. Specifications may precedeor contribute to the body of knowledge for new open standards, thus serving a meaningful role infurthering innovation in the geospatial industry.

[6]

In the case of the OGC, output from the OGC

Innovation Program initiatives may result in draft specifications for consideration for development
as a standard. Further, open standards or specifications developed externally to the OGC may[7]submitted to the OGC to become formally endorsed as OGC community standards.

Based on international standards, <strong>profiles</strong> may be established and endorsed bygovernance bodies to meet the specific needs of their country or organization. Metadata profiles,
such as the <a href="https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/metadata-iso19139"><em>INSPIRE
datasetandservice

metadata</em></a>[<fontdocument/tg/metadata-iso19139</font>&#93;,

size="0.85em">https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/
and

the

<a

href="https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc211/home/standards-in-action/user-story-challenge/paigh--latin-american-metadata.html">_Latin

AmericanMetadata

ProfileLAMP

version2(LAMPv2)</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc211/home/standards-inaction/user-story-challenge/paigh---latin-american-metadata.html</font>&#93;

areexamplesofprofiles based on international standards.
Good practices describe how an open standard is applied against scenarios or define a profile that
tailors it to the requirements of a specific community. Good practices (also referred to as best or
proven practices) often highlight the practical use of one or more standards and specifications oraddress particular use cases. They may relate to implementing tools and techniques, emerging
technologies and standards, or extensions/profiles for specific application domains.

[8]

Over time and with broad adoption, a specification may be so widely used that the community
considers it a de facto standard for a given application, even if it was not assigned an official
status by a governance body. Developers should be aware that some de facto standards require
proprietary solutions to be licensed in order to implement them. De facto standards should balanceinteroperability, access, and use requirements and be used in parallel with open international or[9]national standards when possible.

Closed standards or specifications carry risks that may pose hidden challenges such as delays andcosts of expanding or adapting data and software tools to work with other resources, software, ororganizations. Organizations should be aware of the potential risk to interoperability of closed
standards or specifications and consider these risks on balance with the benefits. Open standards
and specifications, on the other hand, help organizations best balance their needs while minimizing
business and technology risks.
In an ever-changing world, open standards help assure that organizations can more quickly takeadvantage of new geospatial information sources and new technology tools. International
standards developed and maintained by the consensus processes of recognized SDOs help avoid12risk by broadly addressing and managing community requirements for interoperability, access, anduse.

The Benefits of Open Geospatial Standards
Geospatial information, technologies, and standards help enable and improve the sharing,
integration, and application of geospatial information for decision making. While national
governments can make proactive policy choices to maximize benefits, other jurisdictions andenterprises must align with this policy to achieve mutually optimal outcomes.
A multi-national response to a regional disaster is one example where having clear policy on the
sharing of geospatial information is critically important. The shaping of appropriate geospatial
policy is beyond the mandate of this Guide (See IGIF SP2 [http://ggim.un.org/IGIF/part2.cshtml]), but it
must be addressed. For without a suitable policy framework the standards-based approaches
described in this Guide will be of limited value.
The remainder of this Guide seeks to answer the following questions directly related to the role ofstandards in geospatial information management:• What are the common standards adopted by organizations worldwide?
• Which of these standards are appropriate for geospatial information management in thecontext of the UN initiative on Global Geospatial Information Management?
• What are the appropriate geospatial standards for an organization’s needs?
In addition to these questions the overall value proposition associated with open standards should
be considered by all stakeholders. The fundamental questions include quantifying the benefits,
examining the reduction of related risks, as well as the potential for improved productivity andnew opportunities.

Examples of Quantitative Benefits
Open standards facilitate increased return on geospatial investment through a host of mechanisms.
Return on investment may be realized through direct means such as improved efficiency, fromsaved time and effort, or through the ability to rapidly mobilize new capabilities. The following
examples demonstrate the monetary benefits of standardization:• The German Institute for Standardization (DIN) estimated benefits of 17 billion euros to theGerman economy in 2010: "Standards promote worldwide trade, encouraging rationalization,
quality assurance and environmental protection, as well as improving security andcommunication. Standards have a greater effect on economic growth than patents or licenses."[10]• The Joint Research Centre of the European Union collaborated with the Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya (Spain) in concluding that the establishment of the Spatial Data Infrastructure(SDI) of Catalonia — based on open geospatial standards — generated significant internal
efficiency benefits as well as benefits of more effective service delivery. They quantified thesebenefits and estimated that the value exceeded four year’s investment in just over six months.
[11]

13

• Of the projects considered in a NASA Geospatial Interoperability Return on Investment Study,
the project that adopted and implemented geospatial interoperability standards had a riskadjusted ROI of 119.0%. This ROI is a "Savings to Investment" ratio. This can be interpreted asfor every $1.00 spent on investment, $1.19 is saved on Operations and Maintenance costs.
Overall, the project that adopted and implemented geospatial interoperability standards saved
26.2% compared to the project that relied upon a proprietary standard. One way to interpret
this result is that for every $4.00 spent on projects based on proprietary platforms, the samevalue could be achieved with $3.00 if the project were based on open standards.

[12]• New Zealand SDI Benefits: Spatial Information in the New Zealand Economy - Realizing
Productivity Gains is a report commissioned by Land Information New Zealand, theDepartment of Conservation, and the Ministry of Economic Development. It provides robust
economic analysis that quantifies the contribution spatial information makes to the New
Zealand economy, as well as opportunities for this contribution to grow. The report concludes
that use and re-use of spatial information is estimated to have added $1.2 billion in productivity
related benefits to the New Zealand economy in 2008.

[13]• The Global Geospatial Industry Outlook (2019), published by Geospatial Media andCommunications, valued the global geospatial industry at an estimated US$ 339.0 billion in
2018. The cumulative geospatial industry is projected to reach US$ 439.2 billion by 2020,
growing at a compound annual growth rate of 13.8%. This growth acceleration can beaccredited to continuous technology advancements in the industry, democratization of
geospatial information riding on integration with advancements in digital technologies andresultant innovative business models. Adopting open standards is considered to be important
for the way forward and for realizing the full potential of geospatial technologies.
• In 2019, the Singapore government announced a Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI)
called " GeoSpace-Sea [https://ihr.iho.int/articles/singapores-national-marine-spatial-data-infrastructuregeospace-sea-enabling-hydrospatial-context/]". Focused on data harmonization and interoperability

standards, GeoSpace-Sea is designed to bridge the land/sea information gap and enableinterdisciplinary marine coastal applications for the Singapore government. The establishmentof a national MSDI will help provide environmental, social, and economic benefits to Singapore.
For instance, the maritime industry, which contributes 7% of Singapore’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), and the aquaculture industry will benefit from GeoSpace-Sea through increased
efficiency, safety, and sustainability.
Key Types of Geospatial Standards
There are several different ways in which standards for geographic information can be categorized
or characterized. The IGIF SP 6 refers to three general types of standards:• Domain-specific standards• General-purpose standards for geospatial information and technology specifically• General-purpose standards for information technologies and the internet generally.
Examples of standards for each of these types are found in Sections 2 and 4 of this Guide.
Some standards serve as general-purpose IT standards. For example, the Unified Modeling Language(UML) [http://www.uml.org/], developed and published by the Object Management Group (OMG) andISO/IEC JTC 1, can be used for "specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts

14

of software systems, and for business modeling". It is not specific to geospatial information andtechnologies. _ISO 19103 [https://www.iso.org/standard/56734.html], is a profile[14]

of UML for the special

case of describing geographic information. It is not specific to any domain or context and therefore
also has a general purpose in the context of geospatial information and technologies. The generalpurpose standards are also referred to as "foundational" standards because they form thetechnological basis for geospatial information exchange (see Figure 1.2).
Other standards describe geographic information related to a specific domain or context.
Standards,

such

as

the

Geospatial

Consortium

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/gwml2"><em>GroundwaterMarkup(GroundwaterML)</em></a>gwml2</font>&#93;,

<a

Open
[<font(OGC)

Languagesize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html">_ISO

Addressing&#8201;&#8212;&#8201;Part<a1:

Conceptualmodel</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html</font>&#93;,
href="http://www.iso.org/standard/51206.html">_ISO

19152

19160-1[<fontandGeographic<ainformation

-

Land

Administration Domain Model (LADM)</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/
51206.html</font>&#93;

make

use

of

the

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/56734.html">_ISO
information&#8201;&#8212;&#8201;Conceptual

general-purpose
19103

schemasize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/56734.html</font>&#93;

Geographic

language</em></a>to<adescribe[<fontgeographic

information related to ground water, addressing and land administration respectively.

15

Figure 1.2 Characterization of general-purpose IT and geospatial standards, and domain-specific geospatial
standards.

Geospatial standards can be further characterized based on one of three standardization[15]

targets:

1. Information (or content) standards
2. Service or interface standards
3. Procedural standards.
A specific standard is not necessarily aimed at a single standardization target. Sometimes
information, services and procedures are grouped into a single standard for a specific domain. For

16example,<ahref="http://www.iso.org/standard/54759.html"><em>ISO

19147</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/54759.html</font>&#93; defines both transfer node
information relevant for travel planning and modelling of interoperable transport systems, as well
as a set of services related to transfer nodes.
Therefore, these characterizations are important when deciding which standard to use and aredescribed in more detail below:<strong>Information standards</strong> address heterogeneity at the semantic, structural, andsyntactic level, i.e., they standardize the meaning of information (e.g., by defining concepts), how it
is structured (e.g., through a conceptual model) and how it is encoded (e.g., a standardized digital
encoding).

ExamplesincludeGroundwaterML</em></a><a[<fonthref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/gwml2"><em>OGC
size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/

gwml2</font>&#93;<em>,</em> <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/53798.html"><em>ISO 191151,

Geographic

1</em></a>[<fontinformation&#8201;&#8212;&#8201;Metadata&#8201;&#8212;&#8201;Part
size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/53798.html</font>&#93;<em>:

Fundamentals</em> and <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html"><em>ISO 19160-1</a>[<font size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html</font>&#93;.

Figure 1.3 International cooperation on Arctic issues through OGC / ISO standards-based SDI and Portal<strong>Service or interface standards</strong> define the rules for interacting with services andcomponents in order to discover, access or process geographic information. Examples include the<a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms"><em>OGC Web Mapping Service (WMS)</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms</font>&#93;

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/32546.html"><em>ISO<em>(also</em>

19128</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/32546.html</font>&#93;<em>)</em>,<a[<font<a17

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs"><em>OGC Web Feature Service (WFS)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs</font>&#93;
href="http://www.iso.org/standard/42136.html">ISO(also
19142</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/42136.html</font>&#93;)
href="http://www.iso.org/standard/40601.html"><em>ISO<aand19132</a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/40601.html</font>&#93;. Ideally, when standards are
implemented in products or online services the resulting components work together seamlessly.
Procedural standards describe an ordered series of steps to accomplish a specific task. Examples
include ISO/TS 19158 [http://www.iso.org/standard/32576.html], and _ISO 19135-1 Geographic Information- Procedures for item registration - Part 1: Fundamentals [http://www.iso.org/standard/54721.html].
Together, these standards allow different systems and applications to communicate and work
together.
When selecting Interoperability standards, one needs to know which kind of interoperability[16]

can be achieved by its implementation.
• <strong>System interoperability</strong> is achieved if hardware, operating systems, andcommunication systems are able to communicate and work together, e.g. by standards such as<ahref="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460"><em>IETF

IPv6</em></a>size="0.85em">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460</font>&#93;
href="http://www.ieee802.org/">_IEEE

and802</em></a>[<font<a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ieee802.org/</font>&#93;.
• Syntactic interoperability is achieved if different systems, applications, or services can
exchange information via a common encoding, such as GeoJSON [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7946] orthe shapefile format.
• Structural interoperability is achieved if systems, applications, or services can exchange
information through a common conceptual model or the mapping from one model to another.
This addresses heterogeneity in structure, e.g., a street can be represented as an object of thetype 'Street' or by a generic geospatial object whose attribute (or tag or property) has the value'street'.
• Semantic interoperability is achieved when the differences in language, cultural and domain
meanings between concepts and data representing reality are eliminated. These differences
arise from the various perspectives and contexts from which real-world phenomena are
abstracted. Between organizations, and even within the same organization, the terminology fora particular phenomenon may have many meanings and contexts. For example, depending on
the context, a "bridge" can be an element of a road infrastructure, a platform of a ship, an
obstacle in marine navigation, or a point of interest for tourists. Another example, a 'tower' canbe a communication facility, a navigation landmark, and an aeronautical obstacle.
Semantics, in the context of this Guide, refers to the meaning of words, terms and concepts related
to geospatial information. Semantic interoperability is an important part of standardization at
national, international, and local levels. For information to flow among jurisdictions andorganizations, it is essential that all parties agree on the meaning or intent of what the information
represents. Through the semantic mediation process, national data can be combined with common
meanings to address regional topics that transcend national boundaries.

18How are Standards Implemented?
Depending on how they are used, standards can be grouped into meta and application (or instance)level standards:• <strong>Meta level</strong> standards will typically not be implemented at the country level
yet are required for the development of other standards. It is important to know that thesestandards exist and understand their role in standardization. Examples include <ahref="http://www.iso.org/standard/63541.html"><em>ISO19104</a>size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/63541.html</font>&#93;,
href="http://www.iso.org/standard/26010.html">_ISO[<fontand

19105</a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/26010.html</font>&#93;,

Figure 1.4 Using OGC WaterML and OGC/ISO application-level web services standards, New Zealandcreated an integrated national water resource system from 16 separate regional catchment authorities.
www.ogc.org/blog/3285• <strong>Application level</strong> standards are directly implementable, such as metadata
standards (e.g., <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/53798.html"><em>ISO 19115-1</em></a>[<font size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/53798.html</font>&#93;), ontologies for a
specific domain or implementation (e.g., <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/waterml">_OGC
WaterML</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/waterml</font>&#93; or<ahref="http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html">_ISO

19160-1</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/61710.html</font>&#93;) or service specifications
(e.g.

<a

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms">_OGC

WMS</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms</font>&#93;
href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs">_OGC

WFS</em></a>and[<font<a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs</font>&#93;). Countries often develop theirown profiles (specializations) of international application-level standards (e.g., the <ahref="http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata/6541">Infrastructure for Spatial Information in theEuropean Community (INSPIRE) Metadata</a> [<font size="0.85em">http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/
metadata/6541</font>&#93;),• Instance level standards refer to the implementations of standardized data, services, orprocedures. Examples would be the standardized geospatial datasets that are made available as19

part of a national SDI.

SDOs for Geospatial Information
The majority of international standards are developed in SDOs that use a consensus process guided
by documented, repeatable and well proven policies and procedures. This helps ensure that thestandards developed meet the needs of all users.
The three international organizations that participated in the development of this document sharethe objective of developing standards for geospatial information:
• The

ISO

Technical

Committee

211

Geographic

information/Geomatics(

ISO

TC/211[https://www.iso.org/committee/54904.html])• The Open Geospatial Consortium ( OGC [https://ogc.org/])• The International Hydrographic Organization ( IHO [https://iho.int/]).
Additionally, the World Wide Web Consortium ( W3C [https://www.w3.org/]) and Internet Engineering
Task Force ( IETF [https://www.ietf.org/]) are examples of two SDOs that develop foundational
standards which are increasingly important in contemporary geospatial applications based uponinternet and web technologies. Amongst others, the American Society for Photogrammetry ( ASPRS[http://www.asprs.org/]) and the Geospatial and Remote Sensing Society ( GRSS [http://www.grss-ieee.org/])of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers also play roles in geospatial standards
development.
These international standards organizations have representative members from government,
industry, research, non-government organizations and academia who arrive at decisions through aconsensual process. The organizations develop, maintain, and make publicly available open
standards that facilitate the ability to publish, discover, access, manage and use geospatial
information across a range of applications, systems, and business enterprises.

The Benefits of Joining an SDO
To take advantage of emerging standards and trends, countries and organizations can leverage theglobal resources of groups such as the UN-GGIM, SDOs, and other major associations mentioned inthis document to identify trends and to adopt good practices.
Organizations participate in standards development work of OGC, ISO/TC 211 and IHO tounderstand implications and assure earliest implementation of standards that will help easeintegration of new technologies and data sources. Manyfold benefits can be achieved by formallyjoining or informally participating in an SDO. These benefits include:• Access to communities of experts to gain and share knowledge.
• The ability to influence the development of international standards.
• Opportunity to access and contribute to innovative new technologies, with potential funding
programs.
• Gaining insight into emerging new technology trends and how standards emerge around them.
• Trusted advice - regulators can rely on standards as a solid base on which to create public

20policy.
• Forging international partnerships for government and academia.
• Building capacity via formal training and development programs.
• Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
At a minimum, organizations and institutions should consider providing their interoperability
requirements to the OGC, ISO, and/or IHO. This does not require much time but ensures that theserequirements are documented and considered in the ongoing development of international
standards.
The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is an international consortium of geospatial experts from
more than 500 businesses, government agencies, research organizations, and universities driven to
make geospatial (location) information and services FAIR - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, andReusable. OGC’s member-driven consensus process creates https://www.ogc.org/docs/is royalty free
[https://www.ogc.org/docs/is]. OGC actively analyzes and anticipates emerging https://www.ogc.org/
ogctechtrends tech trends [https://www.ogc.org/ogctechtrends], and runs an agile, collaborative Researchand Development (R&D) lab - the OGC Innovation Program [https://www.ogc.org/ogc/programs/ip] - thatbuilds, tests and prototypes candidate standards to address community challenges. Membership
details and benefits can be found at https://www.ogc.org/ogc/benefits [https://www.ogc.org/ogc/benefits]
The ISO [http://www.iso.org/committee/54904.html] is a global network of national standards bodies.
Members are the foremost standards organizations in their countries and there is only one member
per country. Each member represents ISO in its country. Individuals or companies cannot become
ISO members, but there are ways that you can https://www.iso.org/get-involved.html take part instandardization work [https://www.iso.org/get-involved.html], either through a national standards body(the member), or by becoming a liaison organization to an ISO committee, in the case of geographic
information, this is ISO TC/211. Specific details can be found at https://committee.iso.org/home/tc211[https://committee.iso.org/home/tc211]
The IHO [https://iho.int/en/become-a-member-state] is the inter-governmental technical and consultative
organization that sets global standards for hydrography and nautical charting and provides global
coordination and support for the world’s national hydrographic services. It is a recurring
recommendation of the General Assembly of the UN and of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), that every coastal State should be a member of the IHO in order to meet its
international obligations while maximizing the national economic benefits that accrue from acomprehensive

nationalhydrographic

program.

Moredetails

can

be

found

at

https://iho.int/en/become-a-member-state [https://iho.int/en/become-a-member-state]
The W3C [http://www.w3.org/] is an international community where Member organizations, a fulltime staff [https://www.w3.org/People/], and the public work together to develop Web standards. Moredetails can be found at https://www.w3.org/ [https://www.w3.org/]
For further information on how to become a member or participate with these organizations please
see their respective websites.

21

Emerging Standards and Trends
Standards continuously adapt to changes in technologies and other developments. On a regularbasis, the UN-GGIM reviews and publishes a five to ten year vision on future trends in geospatial
information

management[https://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/10th-Session/documents/

Future_Trends_Report_THIRD_EDITION_digital_accessible.pdf]. In the most recent version, the top fivegeospatial industry drivers predicted to have the greatest impact on geospatial information
management over the next 5 to 10 years were identified: the rise of new data sources & analyticalmethods; technological advancements; evolution of user requirements; industry structural shift;
and legislative environment. More specifically related to standardization, the Trends provide aforecast of technologies and related geospatial standardization requirements. Amongst others, amind map of emerging trends, grouping and road map of synergetic trends and a summary chart ofPriority Tech Trends are reviewed and published regularly. These documents should be read in the
more general context of the importance of geospatial information management to international
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [http://sdgs.un.org/goals], as discussed in Monitoring
Sustainable Development Contribution of Geospatial Information to the Rio+20 process.
The market is delivering technology advancements on a continual basis. Many of theseadvancements will help to further improve organizational decision making and reduce cost andeffort associated with IT infrastructure. Organizational leadership must be prepared to takeadvantage of key technology advancements when they become widely available.

Strategy for Standards Implementation
Tiers: A Goal-based Approach to Implementation
Organizations, institutions, and information communities are likely to be starting their standards
journeyatdifferent

pointsinthecapability/maturity

continuum,

requiringaphasedimplementation approach that considers the different levels of experience and expertise of thepeople involved.

[17]

Collaborative initiatives to share and deliver geospatial information are

typically oriented around SDI initiatives.
Standards for geospatial information can be seen as a continuum, enabling the achievement of
increasing levels of interoperability of geospatial information as more standards are adopted andadapted to keep pace with evolving requirements, technologies, and tools.
Reaping the benefits of standards adoption is a journey and organizations, institutions andinformation communities are likely to be starting this journey at different points in thecapability/maturity continuum. This guide provides a model for the phased implementation of
geospatial standards that considers the different levels of experience and expertise of the players
involved. Some organizations and institutions are far advanced, others are just beginning, andsome are only considering the use of standards. Figure 1.5 describes several "Tiers" that convey a
standardization trajectory where the levels of capability and scale of collaboration increase as
knowledge and experience are gained.
Standards are a critical element of geospatial information management. In Figure 1.5, the trajectoryfor increasing levels of capability and collaboration is shown over four Tiers:22• Tier 1 - Share maps internally and over the Web.
• Tier 2 - Geospatial Information partnerships to share, integrate and use geospatial data fromdifferent providers.
• Tier 3 - Spatially enabling the nation, large scale (typically national) efforts to develop acomprehensive SDI that provides access to multiple themes of information, applications forusing the shared information, and access via a variety of environments (mobile, desktop, etc.).
• Tier 4 - Towards spatially enabled IT infrastructure, delivering geospatial information into the
Web of data, and bridging between SDI and a broader ecosystem of information technology
systems.

Figure 1.5 Increasing levels of capability and scale of collaboration

Decades of experience has shown that lack of consensus, leadership commitment, and a clear
governance structure are the key factors limiting the full achievement of the benefits of open
standards. Constrained funding, inadequate governance arrangements, a lack of understanding of
the value proposition of using a standards-based approach and a lack of knowledge and experiencein standards implementation are major limiting factors and are often related to a lack of consensus
among stakeholders. With communication between stakeholders comes an exchange of knowledge
and experience.
As consensus builds, understanding improves and the willingness of stakeholders to commit
resources and coordinate activities in an open fashion grows. This facilitates a continuing, selfsustainable, and self- governed expansion of open standards. Single agency portrayal of basic
information develops into collaborative multi-agency standards implementation that takes fuller
advantage of emerging technological developments. Recognizing the complexity and constraints, it23can be worthwhile to implement standards in an incremental fashion. Full interoperability can taketime as an organization or institution matures in both technical and policy terms.

Standards Adoption with Increased Maturity
As the need for interoperability increases, more standards are adopted with increased maturity.
Increased capability and scale of collaboration are associated with sets of standards being adopted,
as shown in Figure 1.6.
The Tiers represent a series of steps in an organization’s ability to offer increasing levels of
geospatial information and associated services as part of an information community. At the
beginning of the process (Tier 1), an organization may want to provide access to geospatial
information delivered as map images together with a description of them (i.e., metadata).

Figure 1.6 Standards adoption over increased capability and scale of collaboration

As an initiative matures, multiple organizations may wish to collaborate to provide a means toshare, search, access, integrate and cooperatively maintain and use a particular geospatial
information layer (such as transportation) from multiple sources using web services (Tier 2).
Larger scale initiatives have a goal of establishing a nation-wide coverage of foundation or[18]

framework

data as part of their National SDI (NSDI). Foundation data is an accurate set of key

geospatial data layers needed most by different users (imagery, elevation, administrative
boundaries, transportation, land use, and water features for example). Providing access to thisgeospatial Foundation Data for a range of application areas is the next level of maturity (Tier 3).
Finally, to address emerging needs and leverage new technologies and opportunities such as
24

crowdsourcing of geospatial information and big data analytics, a community would focus ondelivering geospatial information from SDI environments to spatially enable the broader IT
infrastructure (Tier 4).
The scale and scope of an initiative in terms of the number of stakeholders and the number of
information communities are also presented in this diagram. At each Tier, as more stakeholders
adopt standards, the scale of the initiative increases. Likewise, as initiatives move along thecontinuum from one Tier to the next, from single organization to information communities, thescale of interoperability grows, and the value proposition of standards adoption pays dividends.
The description of the Tiers provided later in this document identifies the specific suites of SDI
standards that are used to achieve them, in the form of blocks that are stacked on top of each other.
An

InventoryofStandards(Appendix

1)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/

1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing] provides details on the specific suite of standards

associated with each Tier.

Mechanisms for Facilitating Technology and Data Interoperability
Feature catalogues are a common mechanism for enforcing semantic interoperability ingeospatial information. Feature catalogues[19]

describe the semantics of what is meant by 'Tower',

so all consumers of the information agree, and what properties of the feature are important todescribe it, such as height above ground, height above sea level, construction, or navigationalmarks (e.g., lights). The feature catalogue contains a record of all the features that are relevant
within the organization or jurisdiction. The agreed understanding of what is relevant is known as
the universe of discourse.
<em><em>Ontologies and conceptual models</em></em> are a means to describe a universe of
discourse by describing and categorizing concepts, their properties, and relationships between
them. Conceptual models are usually described in the UML and are useful for model-driven
development and architectures. They are used to achieve semantic and structural interoperability.
Ontologies are a key enabler for the Semantic Web, an extension of the World Wide Web throughstandards set by the W3C. To enable the encoding of semantics with the data, standards such as <ahref="http://www.w3.org/RDF/"><em>Resource

Description

size="0.85em">http://www.w3.org/RDF/</font>&#93;
href="http://www.w3.org/OWL/"><em>Web

Framework</em></a>_(RDF)</em>

Ontology[<fontand<aLanguage</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.w3.org/OWL/</font>&#93; _(OWL)</em> are used. <sup class="wj"><aid="_footnoteref_20"></a>[<aanchor="_footnotedef_20">20</a>]</sup>For

example,these

technologies are used to formally represent metadata in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat2/"><em>Data Catalog Vocabulary</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.w3.org/TR/vocabdcat-2/</font>&#93;_(DCAT)</em>

-

a

RDF

vocabulary

designedtofacilitate

semantic

interoperability between data catalogs published on the Web. DCAT enables a publisher to describe
datasets and data services in a catalog using a standard model and vocabulary that facilitates theconsumption and aggregation of metadata from multiple catalogs.
Data standards are integral to the reuse and repurposing of information to achieve frictionless data
supply chains. Having data that is interoperable means that systems and services that create,
exchange, and consume data have clear, shared expectations of the contents, contexts and meaningof the data. In addition to promoting standardization for data sharing and reuse, interoperable data
supports multidisciplinary knowledge integration, discovery, innovation, and productivity

25

improvements. To be interoperable the data will need to use community-agreed formats, language,
and vocabularies (building on the semantic interoperability described above). The metadata will
also need to use standards and vocabularies and contain links to related information

[21]

.

Data integration is needed between and among the various geospatial data themes such as therelationship between a road and a boundary. Integration is also needed between geospatial data
themes and geospatially referenced statistical data. Statistics are gathered and summarizedaccording to the topic and point or area of interest. In a geospatial context, point locations and/or
boundaries of these additional thematic areas are required to analyze and map the results.
The following are examples of data standards:
• The

<a

href="https://iho.int/en/s-100-universal-hydrographic-data-model"><em>IHO

100</em></a>[<fontmodel</font>&#93;

S-

size="0.85em">https://iho.int/en/s-100-universal-hydrographic-datastandard,

and

its

predecessor,<ahref="http://iho.int/uploads/user/pubs/standards/s-57/31Main.pdf">_IHO S-57</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://iho.int/uploads/user/pubs/standards/s-57/31Main.pdf</font>&#93;, provides
an ISO conformant, tightly defined set of types, features, attributes and relationships alongsidea geospatial registry, including formats for data exchange, such that data from differenthydrographic offices and equipment manufacturers are fully interoperable.
• Coverage data and service standards unify spatio-temporal raster data handling into a common
foundation, known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cube">datacubes</a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cube</font>&#93;. Examples include 1-D sensor
time series, 2-D satellite imagery, 3-D x/y/t image timeseries and x/y/z geophysical data, as wellas

4-D

x/y/z/t

atmospheric

data.

Coveragefundamentals

are

laid

down

in

<a

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/70743.html">_ISO 19123-1 / OGC Abstract Topic 6</em></a>[<font size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/70743.html</font>&#93;, interoperable data
structures are defined in <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/70948.html">_ISO 191232</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/70948.html</font>&#93;(also

available as <a href="http://docs.opengeospatial.org/is/09-146r6/09-146r6.html">_OGC Coverage
Implementation Schema</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://docs.opengeospatial.org/is/09146r6/09-146r6.html</font>&#93;), and tailored, modular service ecosystem is provided with <ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcs">_OGC Web Coverage Service (WCS)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcs</font>&#93;

and

<a

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps">_Web Coverage Processing (WCPS)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps</font>&#93; datacube analytics language.
These standards are implemented by major open-source and proprietary tools and proven on
multi-petabytes, for example, in the <a href="https://earthserver.xyz/">EarthServer</a> [<fontsize="0.85em">https://earthserver.xyz/</font>&#93; Datacube federation.
• <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosciml"><em>OGC Geoscience Markup Language(GeoSciML)</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosciml</font>&#93;
enables national geological surveys to map their national geological models to a global
standard,

and

the

<a

href="http://geodesyml.org/">_Geodesy

MarkupLanguage(GeodesyML)</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://geodesyml.org/</font>&#93;, standardizes
the encoding and communication of measurements and metadata required for national
geodesy.
Application Programming Interfaces (API) are technology standardsthat specify how software

26

components interact with each other through standard interfaces that enable different systems andservices to work together seamlessly, saving time, effort, and cost. APIs are one way to reduce thedependency on implementation specifics and make code more reusable. Web services are anotherway to specify the interaction between computers. Using technology standards gives programmers
the ability to later change the behavior of the system by simply swapping the component used withanother. This, in turn, provides the flexibility to rapidly mobilize newer technologies and data
sources in the future.
The word 'protocol' may mean different things to legal, scientific and computer science audiences.
The word can be interpreted in many ways, but the intent is the same: to bring different parties
together with a common understanding of a code of conduct in a given situation.
Examples of technology standards are:
• The WWW HTTP protocol is the communication protocol that facilitates the communication of
web content between machines connected to the internet, enabling users using different
devices (PC, mobile phone, tablet, etc.), and different browsers (Internet Explorer, Google
Chrome, Firefox) to communicate seamlessly with web servers around the globe.
• OGC API – Features [http://www.ogc.org/standards/ogcapi-features] (also ISO 19168-1 [http://www.iso.org/
standard/32586.html]) allows Geographic Information System (GIS) clients to query geospatial

information held within servers and databases in a standard way and builds upon standardized
Web protocols so the client and the server can be at any locations on the internet.
• <ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcs"><em>OGC

WCS</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcs</font>&#93; is a modular framework for
spatio-temporal

data

extraction,

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps">_OGC(WCPS)</em></a>[<fontWeb

includingthe<aCoverage

Processing

Servicesize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps</font>&#93;

forsearch, extraction, filtering, analytics, fusion, and visualization of massive datacubes.
Achieving these increasing levels of interoperability is driven by a desire to provide decision
makers with access to a knowledge environment in which geospatial information is accessed andprocessed across the Web and in mobile environments. Thus, data about people, places and things
are linked together to provide a deeper understanding of a given situation (such as a disaster,social, environmental, or economic phenomena).

2. Understanding [Organizational
Standards] Needs
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to:* Understand which standards are available to assess and address an organization’s needs basedon geospatial maturity level or tier.
* Understand how standards are evolving along with changing needs and technologies.

27

User Needs Perspectives
Understanding the standards landscape to support organizational standards needs is complex andcommonly requires expert knowledge and advice. To understand organizational standards needs, it
is helpful to look at user requirements from three different perspectives: the user, the data andfrom the organizational perspective.

The User Perspective
A user must have the ability to easily discover new knowledge, information, or data to address theirneeds. For example, a researcher may have knowledge gaps and would be required to define thedata or information needed to address the knowledge gap. The researcher may check for existing
data, define the data/information gap, discover or collect the missing data. A navigator on thebridge of a ship needs to know the depth of the sea as part of planning and conduct of their voyage.
He or she is aware of and can discover the depth (bathymetric) information regularly collected andmadeavailable

digitally

via

standardized

Electronic

Navigational

ChartspublishedbyHydrographic Offices. A non-expert could also be interested in the planning of offshore wind farms
and needs to find the relevant data - How can a non-expert know where to find and discover thisdata? Similarly, a web developer building a website or application may be unfamiliar with thedomain-specific content data and would need to find relevant standards and information.

The Data Perspective
Data providers and users should be aware that there are many considerations around data needs,
e.g.:• Ability to access and use data from:◦ Legal and security perspectives (e.g. licensing, rights, restrictions, and responsibilities).
◦ Data format perspective (e.g., requirements for specific software)◦ Data volume perspective (e.g., Big Data (imagery, geophysics) vs small data (e.g., laboratory
analysis, manual field observations)).
• Maintaining and releasing data might satisfy specific or multiple needs depending on data types
and collection methods, including:◦ Earth and space imaging◦ Historic and real-time observations from sensors / Internet of Things (IoT) devices◦ Geospatial data themes (e.g., road networks, offshore bathymetry, building footprints)◦ Map and Chart Products◦ 3D models and simulations
To address these needs organizations should consider adopting metadata, data, and technicalstandards relevant to their specific domain(s).

The Organizational or Institutional Perspective
Needs can be expressed at different scales: from single to multiple organizations and information

28

communities, for example local to national to global. At the organizational level, there is often aprocess in place to capture needs and gaps. Gaps and new needs can become part of anorganization’s future information policy and annual information plan to be integrated into existing
practice. At the regional and global level, regional commissions and international bodies can beestablished to get a clear overview of national responsibilities / priorities in both data collection
and understanding the gaps in data observation and measurements.
This section provides guidance on how to understand the organizational and broader SDI standards
needs and gaps, and how standards can address these potential needs and gaps. There are fiverecommended steps and associated tools that guide users to identify gaps in standards
implementation or adoption, as well as determine their needs and priorities. These steps areapplicable for all SDI regardless of which level of maturity or tier it is in. More details on suggested
standards can be found in the Taking Action Section.
Table 2.1 Five recommended steps and associated tools for understanding and addressing standards needs.

Step
1. Determine the standards baseline and needs

Tool• Framework for managing geospatial data
lifecycle (Figure 2.1)
• Standards

Baseline

Survey

(IGIF

SP6,

Appendix 6.2)
• Example of a metadata survey (Appendix 2)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nHctj0dJ1FNGbAsYbmva_EMfccYgQgX_/view?
usp=sharing]to determine adoption of a

metadata standard and issues with andpriorities of its implementation
2. Choose the tier that matches the needs• The Tier Maturity Matrix (Figures 1.5 and
1.6)• Needs

Assessment

and

Gap

Analysis

Template (IGIF SP6, Appendix 6.3)
3. Match standards to needs.

• Standards

Inventory(Appendix

1)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?
usp=sharing]

providesrecommended

geospatial standards for each Tier.
• Vocabulary

registry(Appendix

3)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1igF3xS4wfz7edKthEjmqtwIwJ_UqKBs0/view?
usp=sharing]

provides a list of registers

publishing generic and domain specific code
lists and ontologies

29

4. Develop a roadmap to address the identified• Needs

needs

Assessment

and

Gap

Analysis

Template (IGIF SP6, Appendix 6.3)
• Template for a Roadmap (Appendix 4)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1KPTx28APjuqBKz8enh13RQFBc3NB7ZKJ/view?
usp=sharing]

5. Identify the additional standards required• Needs(i.e., gaps and next actions)

Assessment

and

Gap

Analysis

Template (IGIF SP6, Appendix 6.3)

There is no intention to suggest that every standard listed in this chapter and in the Standards
Inventory(Appendix

1)[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?

usp=sharing] must be used at each Tier. Instead, these are meant as recommendations. The standards

recommended in this Guide include the three general types of geospatial standards: (1) domainspecific standards, (2) general-purpose standards for geospatial information and technology
specifically, and (3) general-purpose standards for information technologies and the internet
generally, and also the three types of geospatial standards: (1) information (or content) standards,(2) service or interface standards and (3) procedural standards.
• General-purpose: IT, Internet, and Information standards on which geospatial standards
may be dependent. While not all of these standards may be required for implementation, they
may be required within an implementing community’s operational environment. No
information technology standards exist in isolation. There is a rich standards stack that
supports all internet, web, and/or mobile applications. Recommended general IT and internet
standards(

Appendix1[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?

usp=sharing]) are meant as a reference and are by no means all-inclusive. For example, there aremany possible IETF, W3C, and OASIS standards for authentication, authorization, and security
that could be used when implementing an SDI. The choice of which security standards to use
should be determined as part of the system requirements analysis.
• <strong>General-purpose: Geospatial information and technology standards</strong> include
good practice standards regarding geospatial data definitions, representation, data quality,
general architecture and other aspects of geospatial information and technology. Theycollectively provide guidance on geospatial data collection, production, and maintenance.
Geographic Information standards provide important background and guidance on key
concepts of geospatial information definition, organization, and architectural representation.
For example, <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/39242.html"><em>ISO 6709</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/39242.html</font>&#93;

and

<a

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/53539.html"><em>6709/Cor1</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/53539.html</font>&#93;
representationofgeographic

point

location

href="http://www.iso.org/standard/74039.html">_ISO[<fontdescribebystandardized

coordinates,

19111</em></a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/74039.html</font>&#93; defines the requirements
for defining coordinate reference systems, and _ISO19161-1</em> describes the secondary
realizations

of

the

International

Terrestrial

Reference

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geopackage"><em>OGC(ITRS).

GeoPackage</em></a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geopackage</font>&#93;

providesanstandards-based,compact

formattransferring
30

Systemplatform-independent,

geospatial

information,

portableandtheself-describing,
<a

open,
for

href="http://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications">_IHO

S-4</em></a>specifications</font>&#93;

provides[<fontsize="0.85em">http://iho.int/en/standards-and-regulations

forInternational

ChartsandChartSpecifications of the IHO.

Managing the Geospatial Data Lifecycle
Defining a framework and standards for effective management of geospatial data lifecycle is thefirst and probably most important step for any organization (Table 2.1) since data supports alllevels of capability and collaboration described in the 'Tiers: A Goal-based Approach to
Implementation' subsection (Figure 1.5). Organizational success depends on how effectively andefficiently data can be applied in delivering products and services. Potential needs in managing
data life cycle could include:• Implementing consistent practices for geospatial data acquisition, management, and archiving.
• Discovering geospatial data within organizations.
• Defining processes for geospatial data archiving.
• Supporting digital geospatial data preservation.
Developed in 2016, the ' FAIR Guiding Principles for data management and stewardship[http://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles] ' can be used to help with development of these capabilities. These
guidelines intend to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digitalassets, and emphasize machine-actionability (the capacity of computational systems to find andinterrogate data with none or minimal human intervention) to support humans in dealing withincreased volume, complexity, and creation speed of data. The FAIR Principles provide a very
comprehensive framework for applying standards and dealing with all aspects of the data lifecycle,
including the ability to collect, organize, describe, and manage geospatial information.
Standardized application schemas and feature catalogs support these capabilities. Quite often, an
organization has existing digital geographic information they wish to visualize and share over theweb. In this case, the organization would use the referenced standards for maturing theirgeospatial content collection, management, and update capabilities. These standards should beviewed in the context of the maturity of the SDI and transitioning to Spatial Knowledge
Infrastructure (SKI) (Fig 2.2) activities in the organization. For example, a set of standards fortransitioning from building portals for data accessed by humans to enable data being machine
accessible and actionable via IoT.
Along with data management, organizations need to determine a policy on sharing data,
specifically which themes or categories of geospatial information are to be shared. The IGIF SP2Appendix 2.6 provides an example of aGap Analysis Matrix. Depending on the maturity of thesystem, sharing could be "view only" (solves the majority of use cases) or actual publication andtransmission of physical data. At this level, one or more organizations agree to collaborate andshare specific data holdings. Standards at this step in the process are sharing and accessagreements,

authentication/authorization

rules,

policies

that

can

be

documented

andcommunicated, and/or cartographic symbolization rules.
Organizations should consider using the standards summarized in Figure 2.1 to enable effective
management of data and ability to easily apply it for any (re-)use. For details on these standards

31and the standards associated with the discussion of Tiers below, please see Appendix 1[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing].

Figure 2.1 Geospatial data life cycle and examples of applicable standards (Amended from Source:
Geospatial Frameworks)

Functions and Needs by Tier
With reference to the tier diagram introduced in Direction Setting (Figures 1.5 and 1.6) and steps 23 of the 5 recommended steps (Table 2.1), the following subsections underscore the geospatial
functional and standards needs which organizations could address depending on its tier andsystem maturity.

Tier 1 - Share Maps Internally and Over the Web
Within a portal context, the most basic requirement is to be able to easily and effectively access anddisplay geospatial information that may be stored in one or more databases and may use different
vendor solutions and storage formats. Hence, the functions of visualization and portrayal, andsubsequently catalogue and discovery are important at this tier. As identified in IGIF SP6 Appendix
6.3, potential needs at this tier could include:• Visual overlay geospatial information as maps from different sources.
• Visualization of digital geospatial information as maps over the Web.
• Clear description of geospatial information (metadata).
• Discovery of geospatial information via online catalogs.
• Interoperability of internal and disconnected operations.

32

Therefore,

thestandards

mostwidelyimplemented

for

Tier

1

are:

<a

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms"><em>OGC Web Map Service (WMS)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms</font>&#93;,<ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wmts">_OGC Web Map Tile Service (WMTS)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wmts</font>&#93;,<ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/kml">_OGC Keyhole Markup Language (KML)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/kml</font>&#93;,

and

OGC

Geography

MarkupLanguage (GML) (also <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/75676.html">ISO 19136</a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/75676.html</font>&#93;).
Associated with visualizing geospatial information may be the requirement to portray the
information using an organization&#8217;s symbology or cartographic presentation rules. There
are available OGC standards to enable the ability to code, communicate and share visualization
rules , such as <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/sld"><em>OGC Styled Layer Descriptor(SLD)</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/sld</font>&#93;,

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/se">_OGC

Symbology

Encoding</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/se</font>&#93;,

and<a[<font<ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/owc">_OGC Web Services Context (OWC)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/owc</font>&#93;. It is important to be aware that OGC
web services while still broadly used worldwide are currently undertaking significant reform. The
new

OGC

roadmap<supclass="wj"><aid="_footnoteref_22"></a>[<aanchor="_footnotedef_22">22</a>]</sup> focuses on the development of a family of <ahref="http://ogcapi.ogc.org/">_OGC

APIs</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://ogcapi.ogc.org/</font>&#93; which will 'make it easy for anyone to provide
geospatial data to the web'. These standards, built upon the legacy of the _OGC Web Service
standards (WMS, WFS</em>, etc.), define APIs to take advantage of modern web development
practices.
Most organizations further enhance their capability to support geospatial information and service
discovery as well as metadata creation and browsing functionality. Properly populated, standardsbased metadata allows end-users. to determine if a specific set of information is "fit for purpose" fora particular use case. The key standard for metadata of geospatial resources which has been widely
applied and adopted at regional and national levels is the ISO 19115-X series.
The ISO and OGC standards for catalogue and discovery are widely implemented in national,
regional, and local SDIs. Most geospatial technology vendors, as well as open source solutions,
support these standards. These standards should be implemented if the community requires theneed to search metadata holdings for the geospatial information they require. The metadata
catalogue or registry can be made available to services, including clients, using one of the OGC
Catalogue Service-Web (CSW) profiles and/or the W3C DCAT [https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/] datacatalog vocabularies.

Tier 2 - Geospatial Information Partnerships
Once the desired geospatial information can be discovered and viewed as a seamless set of maps,
then the infrastructure is mature enough to consider publishing content and transmitting data(content) to end users. In this Tier, the community and infrastructure have matured to the pointthat the services are stable and the community and partnerships are growing, requesting more

33

functionality and capability. Potential organizational or SDI needs identified in IGIF SP6 Appendix
6.3 include:• Ability to share detailed geospatial information within and with other organizations.
• Enhanced ability to apply geospatial data for improved situational awareness, analysis, anddecision support.
• Ability to maintain and improve quality of common geospatial information between
cooperating organizations.
• Organization agreements to share data using agreed upon standards-based data models.
For example, as more partners (public and private) wish to be part of a CoP to support collaborative
sharing and maintenance of geospatial information content, the infrastructure of participatingorganizations will need to accommodate the use of additional international technology standards
and community information model standards. At this stage, organizations would have to consider
two of the three key types of geospatial standards:• Information (or content) standards, and• Technology (interface, API) standards.
An information model in software engineering is a representation of concepts and therelationships, constraints, rules, and operations to specify data semantics for a chosen domain of
discourse, such as transportation, hydrology, or aviation. The goal of such models is to allow
multiple stakeholders across many jurisdictions to have an agreement on how to express data for a
specific domain, such as weather, geology, or land use. Such agreements significantly enhanceinteroperability and the ability to share geospatial information at any time and as required. For
some

time

<a

href="https://www.ogc.org/standards/gml"><em>OGC

Geography

MarkupLanguage</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/standards/gml</font>&#93; / <ahref="https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc211/home/projects/projects---complete-list/iso-191362.html">_ISO

19136</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc211/home/projects/projects---complete-list/iso-19136-2.html</font>&#93; _(GML)</em> Application Schemas
and encoding has been the primary OGC/ISO standards-based approach used for modelling,
encoding, and transporting geospatial information.
For geospatial information query and access, there are standards which allow the application anduser to specify geographic and attribute queries and request that the geospatial information be
returned as an encoding. Recommended standards to support this capability can be found in theStandards Inventory ( Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?
usp=sharing]) and elaborated in the Taking Actions section later in this Guide.

Common distribution formats are <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml"><em>GML</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml</font>&#93;,

href="https://www.iso.org/standard/20305.html">_ISO<a8211</em></a>size="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/20305.html</font>&#93;(used[<fontby<ahref="http://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications">_IHO S-57 and IHO S-100</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications</font>&#93;),
href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geotiff">OGC_GeoTiff</em></a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geotiff</font>&#93;. International open standards are34

better than proprietary or locally defined formats as they reduce costs and enhance collaboration
with outside groups. There are also standard ways for requesting geospatial information, packaging
that information, and transmitting the information. For example, if the user wants thetransportation theme as a GML dataset or a chart in IHO _S-101</em> or <em>S-57</em>, then theserver-based software needs to be able to generate the information in the requested formats. These
requests for publication are performed using simple web calls. Distribution can be in any numberof standard formats, such as <em>GeoTIFF</em> or <em>GML</em> files. The required data can bestreamed from the server to the client application or for very large files can be uploaded to an ftp
site or accessed through flexible web file sharing services (e.g., API) at any time.
Domain-Specific Data Models
At Tier 2, organizations should consider abstract standards or models that describe such geographic
information elements as geometry (points, lines, polygons), coordinate reference systems, data
quality, time, and so forth. Similarly, domain data modelling extends information modelling byenabling the reuse of concepts, semantics, and information organization (schemas) between related
systems. While information modelling typically refers to modelling just one system, domain
modelling involves the practice of creating definitions of concepts which are reused between
multiple systems. In the standards context this is further extended to imply interoperability ofmodels and platform independence.
Both information models and domain models are relevant to Tier 2 and Tier 3 in the evolution of an
SDI. Using such domain-specific, information or content standards helps to guarantee thatgeospatial information can be encoded and shared with consistent semantics, geometry, quality,and provenance. Further, data models tend to be encoding tools agnostic, meaning the content canbe encoded using XML, JSON, and other encoding technologies. Examples of these models include<ahref="https://www.ogc.org/standards/citygml"><em>OGC

CityGML2.0</em></a>size="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/standards/citygml</font>&#93;,
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/51206.html">_ISO

<a

19152

LADM</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/51206.html</font>&#93;,
href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/infragml">_OGC<a

LandInfra/InfraGML</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/infragml</font>&#93;,
href="https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications">_IHO<a
S-100</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications</font>&#93;
href="https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications">General
Registry</a>_and</em>[<font<a[<fontFeature

<a
Model

and

Geospatialsize="0.85em">https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications</font>&#93;

href="https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications">IHO

S-57</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications</font>&#93; Transfer Standards for
Digital Hydrographic Data.</em>
To summarize, domain-specific standards and content data models refer to community agreementson the elements, relationships between elements, semantics and so forth for a specific data set in agiven domain. The models are implementation independent and vendor neutral. In order toautomate and make the exchange of domain specific geospatial data seamless, consensus needs tobe built among the community participants on:• A shared data model for data exchange, in terms of a common understanding and agreement
for how different systems "understand" each other.

35

• Common definitions of the different data entities and their properties.
• Common controlled vocabularies and taxonomies.
In the case of a transportation network, common agreements and vocabularies mean that:• All stakeholders agree on how to display (symbolize) the transportation network.
• All stakeholders agree to what each attribute, such as road width, means in terms of the sharedview of the transportation network.
• All stakeholders agree to a common view of the road classification system.
This use of common data models is part of the natural evolution and progression of an SDI that
leads to the concept of foundation or framework SDI data themes. This evolution is described ingreater detail in the Tier 3 discussion. Good references on the domain modelling and content
models are ISO 19109 [http://www.iso.org/standard/59193.html] and the https://portal.ogc.org/files/11-107_OGC OWS-8 Domain Modelling Cookbook [https://portal.ogc.org/files/11-107]. These documents describe
rules and good practices for building and maintaining inter-related domain models, which havedependencies on multiple systems. They describe how to build interoperable, maintainable domain
models, the challenges and pitfalls faced in building these models, the techniques and patterns thatshould be applied, and specific tools that can be used.
These agreements enable specific organizations to avoid changing their software or processes byagreeing on a shared data model and semantics (vocabulary, terms and definitions, etc.) used in themodel. There are currently many such models available that have been developed and agreed to byinternational organizations or communities. These models should be considered first prior toconsidering the development of new data models.

Tier 3 - Spatially Enabling the Nation
In this Tier, the infrastructure is mature enough to: (1) provide access to multiple themes of
information via a variety of environments (e.g., mobile, desktop); (2) support deployment of more
applications to enhance value, provide increased citizen benefit, increase collaboration between
organizations; and (3) integration of an increasing number of geospatial information resources,
including volunteer, crowdsourced and real time sensor feeds. Completion of the needs assessment
and gap analysis template described in IGIF SP6 Appendix 6.3 would have identified potential
needs including:• Delivery of "foundation" or "framework" geospatial information.
• Provision of geoprocessing services to perform spatial analysis and modeling.
• Development of mobile applications.
• Integration of real-time sensor feeds.
• Customized products and applications.
Standards are available to facilitate implementation of geoprocessing and analytics services, grid
systems, mobile applications: capturing and integrating real-time sensor data, and geosemantics.
These trends are further elaborated in the 'Taking Action' chapter and relevant standards orframeworks

36

can

be

found

in

Appendix1[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing].

1. <strong>Geoprocessing&amp;

Analytics</strong>–<ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wps"><em>OGC Web Processing Service (WPS)</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wps</font>&#93;and

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps">_OGC

Web

Coverage

Processing<aService(WCPS)</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps</font>&#93;
2. <strong>Grid

Systems</strong>

104r5.html"><em>OGC–<aDiscrete

href="http://docs.opengeospatial.org/as/15-104r5/15Global

Grid

Systems</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://docs.opengeospatial.org/as/15-104r5/15-104r5.html</font>&#93;and_http://www.iso.org/standard/32588.html[ISO]<ahref="http://www.iso.org/standard/32588.html">19170-1</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/32588.html</font>&#93;</em>
3. <strong>Mobile

Applications</strong>–

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosms"><em>OGC

Open

GeoSMS</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosms</font>&#93;
href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geopackage">_OGC<a[<fontand<aGeoPackage</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geopackage</font>&#93;
4. <strong>Real-Time Sensors</strong> – <a href="http://www.ogc.org/node/698"><em>OGC Sensor
Web

Enablement(SWE)</em></a>698</font>&#93;<a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/node/href="http://www.ogc.org/node/698">standards</a>size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/node/698</font>&#93;
href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/sensorthings">_OGC[<fontandSensorThings<aAPI</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/sensorthings</font>&#93;
5. <strong>GeoSemantics -</strong> The <a href="http://www.w3.org/groups/ig/sdw">Spatial Data
on

the

Web

Interest

Group</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.w3.org/groups/ig/

sdw</font>&#93; (W3C/OGC) is one of the communities that provides significant input todevelopment of good practices and vocabularies that encourage better sharing of spatial dataon the Web; and identify areas where standards should be developed jointly by both W3C, OGC
and

ISO,

including

GeoSPARQL</em></a>geosparql</font>&#93;,[<font<a

Features</em></a>features</font>&#93;/
1</em></a>[<font<asize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/api-features">_OGC[<font<ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosparql">_OGC
API

size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/api-

href="https://www.iso.org/standard/32586.html">_ISO

19168-

size="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/32586.html</font>&#93;

and_ISO</em> <a href="http://www.iso.org/standard/57465.html"><em>19150-1</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/57465.html</font>&#93;/<ahref="https://www.iso.org/standard/57466.html">_19150-2</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/57466.html</font>&#93;/<ahref="https://www.iso.org/standard/72177.html">_19150-4</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/72177.html</font>&#93;.
An excellent example of operational use of OGC SWE standards is the Debris Flow Monitoring
System [https://docs.opengeospatial.org/guides/19-050.html] deployed in Chinese Taipei. This program uses
OGC Web Services and OGC SensorThings standards integrated into a monitoring, modelling, andalerting infrastructure. (See also: https://youtu.be/6Hb2iXQQ8TY [https://youtu.be/6Hb2iXQQ8TY]).

37

*Tier 4 - Towards Spatially Enabled IT Infrastructure
Tier 4 involves the transition of current SDI into a broader Spatial Knowledge Infrastructure (SKI)
that can be strategically planned based on: (1) emerging standards and technology trends that are
addressing known gaps, challenges and needs (refer to Direction Setting chapter - Emerging
Standards and Trends); (2) delivering geospatial information into the Web of data and bridging the
SDI to a broader ecosystem of
information systems (Figure 2.2), and (3) The SDI to SKI -Maturity Matrix (Figure 2.3). A

Figure 2.2 Putting SKI in Context'needs assessment and gap analysis template' described in IGIF SP6 Appendix 6.3 has identified two
potential needs of an SDI at the Tier 4 level:• Establishment and implementation of standards for the global geospatial information
community• Understanding and preparation for emerging standards, good practices, and trends.

38

Figure 2.3 From SDI to SKI – Maturity Matrix

Standards are constantly being produced and updated based on prevailing technologies and userneeds and challenges. The SDOs - ISO/TC211, OGC, IHO and W3C have online standards registries
where the latest standards and information are made available and accessible ( Appendix 5[https://drive.google.com/file/d/17y36KQj7bX_anDeDf-hGkbJbEVlPeySY/view?usp=sharing]). Trends are driving
requirements for enhancing existing geospatial standards, rethinking and crafting a newgeneration of standards based on the lessons learned of the existing baseline. It is also opportunethat the implementation of a new suite of standards leverages the value of the emerging ecosystemof technologies and user requirements.
The bridging of the SDI and broader ecosystem of knowledge information systems can be done at
the web services/API or database level. There are existing suites of standards that could kickstartenhancement of SDIs for future SKI capabilities. For instance: OGC APIs as well as new andupcoming Tier 4 standards are included for review in Appendix 6 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/
d/1wKoIqQWX_T4F9mXGS4gRRF5bwxyOk6PC4TCg5BzEWPk/edit?usp=sharing].

3. Planning for Change
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to understand:* How other nations or organizations have implemented and used standards to meet their needs.
* The types of business needs that may be supported through the implementation of standards,
advocating for the adoption of standards to facilitate interoperability and other efficiencies.
* The importance of considering and implementing standards as part of the systems development
lifecycle, and the importance of contributing to and providing feedback to the development ofstandards through direct participation and provision of feedback.
* How to play a role in the identification of opportunities for standardization in the context of
their domain, and act as advocates to engage related communities of practice to facilitatealignment and interoperability at various levels.

39

Properly functioning geographic information management operations include well governed
selection and adoption of open standards, and prioritized engagement in developing international(and where necessary) national standards, along with guidelines, skills development, supporting
software, and a functioning CoP.
To achieve this, the following components are required:• Governance across the national framework, including central government, devolved (regional)
administrations, local government, and technical implementing organizations.
• An endorsed national policy and legal framework.
• Leadership for each part of the national framework, including the standards pathway.
• An active communications plan.
• Bridges to the international and national standards bodies.
• Mechanisms to influence adoption, such as spend controls and local government information
standards.
• Partnerships with industry to develop tools.
• Partnerships with universities and professional bodies to deliver skills training.
• An underpinning and sustainable financial plan, including clear management of benefit
realization.

Institutional Arrangements
Governing Bodies
It is important for implementing organizations to recognize the many interested parties that havedifferent roles in governance. Examples of governance bodies relevant to standards for geospatial
information management include:• The national lead organization for geospatial initiatives (e.g., development and/or setting
national standards, implementation of national SDIs and/or coordination between SDIs at thenational level, etc.).
• The national lead department for digital government, data, or information technology.
• The government office responsible for implementing digitalization of government services.
• Any government or semi-government body already responsible for data or IT standards.
• Specific departments based on the role of geospatial data and information in their business.

40

Figure 3.1 Geonovum statement on Dutch Geospatial Standards

Other bodies may also have a strong role to play:• The national standards body,• Bodies responsible for higher level technical training,• Relevant professional bodies.
One of the first steps in the planning process is to confirm the organizational governance roles,
structures, and processes to organize and guide the implementation of the action plan. It is
important to ensure that the foundation is in place to be able to set up project oversight andimplementation structures (implementation and persistent governance structures and teams),
assess and determine scope and resource requirements to deliver on the action plan (including
post-implementation), and implement changes outlined in the action plan.
Examples of key activities include:• Ensure that all roles, responsibilities, and organizational structures are in place according tonational policy and plan to foster a successful implementation.
• Identify the level of organizational capability required to meet the mission (see Section 2 on
Understanding Needs).
• Define the level of organizational engagement and resources necessary for participation in thenational governance process, as described in IGIF SP6 section 6.6.1, for successful cooperation
between national agencies and stakeholders for sharing and exchanging geospatial data.
• Ensure that acquisition/procurement actions include requirements for common nationallyendorsed standards.

41

Roles and Responsibilities for National Standards Governance
The governance of standards is a collaborative system involving stakeholders from governmentalorganizations, industry and academia, technologists and domain experts, SDOs, and the generalpublic. Activities range from defining the requirements for standards, standards development andfeedback, adoption, and implementation, and verifying compliance, and development andimplementation of guiding policies and implementation artifacts (e.g., legislature, etc.). Annex 6.4 ofthe IGIF provides examples of typical roles and activities, and their relevance to governance forstandards.

Bridges – Linkages to Standards Bodies
These ensure that international policy and standards are well understood within the country, andthat the international standards bodies understand any specific issues relevant to your country.
Where bridges lead will depend on the set of standards deemed to be important. Engagement withorganizations such as OGC and W3C may be direct, while engagement with ISO, IHO, or IETF may
require a 'bridge' such as a national mirror committee that may be managed by a national
standards body. Such committee may require a national government representative, for instancefrom the national standards body, to participate on behalf of all organizations in a nation.

Mechanisms to Influence Adoption
Adoption of standards by individual organizations can be influenced through many strategies, suchas:
• Directives - adoption based on legal or other mandated requirements.
• Negotiation - between partners, within a CoP, etc.
• Certification, compliance - these may come in the form of requirements or provide value suchas competitive advantage to the organization.
• Engagement- demonstrate value of adoption, education and raising awareness.
• Spend controls - invest or withhold funding based on support needed to adopt or consequenceof not being compliant.
Although it would be desirable for organizations to simply believe in and adopt standards because
it is the right thing to do, this approach is generally not practical. There tends to be sufficient
flexibility in relevant standards to enable fine tuning the implementation to meet theorganization’s needs (e.g., profiles of the ISO 19115-1 Metadata standard are one such example).
Furthermore, when the intent is to achieve interoperability through adoption of standards bycooperating organizations in a community, goodwill alone tends to be insufficient. Therefore, a mix
of clear direction, coupled with strong community engagement must be incorporated into any
national action plan.
• Adoption by the central government can be influenced through direction and spend controls,
which may depend on a national technology code of practice. Governance for geographic data
should fit in with this national control.
• Adoption by devolved administrations can be influenced through negotiation, certification42

requirements, engagement, and other means.
• Adoption by local authorities can be influenced through negotiation and engagement via anational coordinating body, the local government information standards organization, etc. This
may include councils, police, fire, health etc.
• Adoption by the private sector can mainly be influenced via national geospatial standards
policy (endorsed standards), and via acquisition language (e.g., mandatory application of
specific standards). Professional education also has a part to play, both at an initial level
through university courses, and an ongoing level through professional bodies for geographic
information, surveying, cartography, geography, IT, project management.

Action Plan
The work leading up to an adopted plan of action typically involves generic project planning
activities consistent with those employed on any change initiative. An important first step of any
action plan is to define its outcomes - what the Action Plan should ultimately achieve. The IGIF SP6
describes two perspectives which contribute to the overall outcomes of the plan, Business
Capabilities and Technical Capabilities. The capabilities needed or desired by an organization may
be impacted by many factors. The business and technical capabilities outlined in this document areorganized according to their typical implementation, supporting a stepwise evolution starting withsmall scale (single organization/community) and incrementally adding capabilities required towork across larger communities (multiple organizations).
Large-scale change initiatives may have impacts on the organization in many ways. In terms ofstandards, key questions to be considered in the planning process include:• What: What are the expected outcomes of the action plan? It is critical to consider the desired
outcomes of the action plan from various perspectives. The IGIF SP6 and Understanding[Organizational Standards] Needs section in this document provide examples of outcomes fromthe technical (e.g., infrastructure capabilities, interoperability, etc.) and business (e.g., single tomulti-organizational or jurisdictional coordination, etc.) perspectives, though there may beothers to consider.
• When: When do we intend to reach our goals or different steps? It is important to establish an
implementation strategy and schedule that reflects the chosen approach. The Direction Setting
and Understanding [Organizational Standards] Needs sections of this document outline
potential objectives for the action plan and in some cases, such as the geospatial tiers, these arepresented in a manner that lend themselves to a stepwise implementation. It is important toconsider factors including the impact and complexity of the desired change(s), the realities
faced by the entities impacted by the desired change(s), any factors which impact how thechange must be implemented, and the relative priorities of desired changes and where thosechanges are implemented. Stepwise approaches may take longer to fully implement but caninvolve significantly less risk than 'big bang' implementations. Planning organization levelchange such that successes are achieved and promoted early is key to maintaining momentum
through delivery of results. When all factors are considered, an implementation schedule withmilestones should be developed, communicating the schedule, priorities, and key checkpoints
used to monitor progress.
• Who: Who are the key experts and decision-makers needed to support the activities identified?

43

When considering the delivery of any change initiative, it is critical to understand those leading,
implementing, and impacted by the change. Examples of such stakeholders include:◦ Governance and policy bodies as defined in the IGIF SP6.
◦ Experts needed for developing information models, specifications, and IT environments.
◦ Organizations providing experts.
◦ Organizations responsible as authoritative data owners.
◦ Reference groups and stakeholders.
In addition to identifying the key stakeholder groups and their respective roles(s), it is also
important to consider whether individual stakeholder groups are supportive or oppose the strategic
direction proposed in the action plan. Supportive stakeholders can act as champions for change,
while opposition must be managed as risk. Ensuring support and progress requires active
engagement, with greater investment made to manage areas of risk.
• Costs and funding: What are the costs? What types of costs? How is the national plan funded?
Even after the project scope, schedule, and stakeholders are identified, it is important toconsider the one-time and ongoing costs to implementing the national plan and how the work
will be sustained into the future. Costs may be direct (procurement of IT infrastructure,procurement of or modification to IT systems, changing needs for human resource), indirect(changes to business processes, governance structures), and may be attributed to the action planor considered in-kind exchanges.
The assessment of the types and anticipated costs not only supports the justification necessary toensure the availability of resourcing to implement and sustain the results of the action plan, butalso serves as a reference for discussing costs with stakeholders, particularly those that see cost as amajor barrier to the action plan or their participation.
• Relation to other initiatives or activities: A major national project will have an impact onother ongoing projects, and there can be both synergies and challenges to deal with. Certainly,
relationships to the implementation of other Strategic Pathways at a national level will behighly relevant. Engagement with other relevant initiatives or activities provides anopportunity to implement consistent messaging on topics of agreement and investigate
differences prior to engaging stakeholders.
It is important to promote and seek alignment between independent efforts whenever possible, andwhere there are differences that cannot be fully resolved, frame them to support those involved.
This typically requires additional supporting context and engagement for impacted stakeholders tounderstand the differences and the rationale. Unresolved differences must be handled with care asthese may impact the implementation of the national plan (e.g., avoid leaving individualorganizations to choose between the action plan and an independent initiative).
• Capacity Building: What is the approach for capacity building and what tools and resources
are available? As the action plan is implemented, it is important to provide support toparticipants to ensure their successful engagement with the project. The Ongoing Management
section of this document outlines key maintenance activities necessary to ensure that
implementations of standards continue to perform optimally, specifically the standards review
process and the role of communities of practice. The action plan should also include feedback

44

and other mechanisms needed for the project to respond to any issues raised during its
implementation.

45

4. Taking Action
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to:* Understand the level of maturity of the nation and/or organization and thereby the level ofcomplexity and the potential work that needs to be done during the implementation phase.
* Match the standards required to fulfill their needs to a given maturity level,* Understand details about what standards are needed and applicable in different cases, how toaccess the standards, and how to take the essential steps to implement those standards.
* Understand the standards and provide feedback into the ongoing development of theimplemented standards.

Implementation
This section describes which standards may be appropriate to use in each of the Tiers as identified
in Figure 1.5. The list of standards provided is not intended to mean that every standard is
mandatory at each Tier. Instead, these are meant as recommendations. For example, a number ofstandards

arelisted

for

Tier

1

(see

Appendix1[https://drive.google.com/file/d/

1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing]). Of the list provided for Tier 1, an initial SDI

implementation may only implement one or two of the suggested standards. Further, standards
recommended in Tier 2 could be implemented in Tier 1 and vice versa. The final decision as towhich standards are implemented must be based on specific requirements and use cases.

Foundational Standards
Important to mention are two categories of standards that can be called "foundational", whichmeans they support all Tiers. They are:
• General information technology and Internet standards on which geospatial standards may
be dependent. While not all of these standards may be required for implementation, they may
be required within an implementing community’s operational environment.
• General Geospatial Standards which include good practice standards regarding geospatial
data definitions, representation, data quality, general architecture and other aspects ofgeospatial information and technology. They collectively provide guidance on geospatial datacollection, production, and maintenance.
General IT and Internet standards are required to implement any web or internet-based solution.
No information technology standards exist in isolation. There is a rich standards stack that
supports all internet, web, and/or mobile applications. These standards are listed as "General IT" inAppendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing].
General geographic information standards provide key concepts of geospatial information
definition, organization, and architectural representation. These standards are listed as "General
Geospatial"

inAppendix1[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?

usp=sharing].

Please note that not all of these standards are required for implementation, but they may berequired or expected to be present in a community’s operating environment. Furthermore, most46

OGC standards reference one or more of these foundational standards.

Tier 1 - Share Maps Internally and Over the Web
Tier 1 Goal – The most fundamental requirement in Tier 1 (see Figure 4.1) is to enable thestakeholders and constituents (users) of an organization or institution to view and queryinteractive maps on the web. A map [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map] is a depiction (i.e., an image)representing geospatial facts, provided for human consumption. Beyond this human-centric service
and closely associated with this fundamental requirement is the general ability to discover, shareand use geospatial information, including (but not limited to) machine-readable representation.
An organizational or institutional goal is to provide staff, partners, and customers with the ability
to view and query geospatial information in existing client applications using a variety of devices
such as a desktop, tablet, or other mobile devices. This can include information developed by anorganization itself or web accessible data available from other organizations. By using a web
browser or smartphone, users can look up different "layers" of information. They can display, zoom
into points of interest, and print maps while keeping their organizational IT infrastructure intact.
As more maps are published, catalogs become necessary to enable map providers to advertise theavailability of their maps and users to find them.
To achieve this goal, there are some basic requirements that must be met. The same terminology
and semantics must be used. The data must be modelled in a way that makes it possible to accessand display data across platforms and formats.
The capabilities of Tier 1 are:
• Harmonized terminology and semantics• Data modelled and described based on harmonized terminology and semantics• Clear description of geospatial data (i.e., metadata)• The ability to discover metadata via on-line catalogs• The ability to visualize digital geospatial information as maps over the Web, from a single
source or overlaid from several different sources.

47

Figure 4.1 Tier 1 Capabilities Enabled by Standards

Listed below are a few features and benefits that a Tier 1 solution can fulfill:• Establishing a simple, low-cost way to share and view geospatial information as images withstakeholders and constituents.
• The ability to implement solutions that enable any desired combination of standards-based
geospatial technologies - enabling interoperability.
• Storing and managing Geospatial information locally in a preferred format, with no need toincur the time and expense of reformatting geospatial information into a single required
format.
• Allowing geospatial data to remain with the owner and maintainer of the data to increase thelikelihood of update.
• The ability to publish maps for on-line government and citizen access.
At this initial level of capability, policy and governance related to geospatial information
management and operations may be somewhat informal.
The following represent some implementation considerations regarding the capabilities depicted
for Tier 1 in Figure 4.1.

Visualization and Portrayal
The most basic requirement in an SDI is to be able to easily and effectively access, integrate, anddisplay geospatial information that may be stored in one or more databases using different48

geospatial technology solutions and storage formats. Of the Tier 1 standards listed in <ahref="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing">Appendix1</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://drive.google.com/file/d/

1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing</font>&#93;

and

<a

anchor="table4_1">Table 4.1</a>, by using just <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms">_OGC
WMS</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms</font>&#93;

anorganization can generate web-based applications that provide access to spatial information
holdings, regardless of the formats used or GIS technology deployed. Many organizations have
implemented _OGC WMS</em> first to provide seamless access to geospatial information. These
deployments provide quick, short term success and return on investment. If the data that anorganization wants to display on the internet are already organized in tiles, then there is also thepossibility of using <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wmts"><em>OGC WMTS</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wmts</font>&#93;. As implementations mature, mostorganizations can enhance their SDI capability with discovery and metadata browsing capability.
The Tier 1 standards recommended for implementing powerful access, browsing, visualization anddisplay capability are listed in Table 4.1. These standards provide the ability for the user to accessand display geospatial information as images in any browser.

Catalogue and Discovery
The ISO and OGC standards for catalogue and discovery are widely implemented in national,
regional, and local SDIs. Most geospatial technology vendors and open-source solutions support
these standards. Implementation of these standards, listed in Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing] and table 4.1 are required to provide the ability

to search metadata holdings for specific geospatial information of interest. The metadata andcatalogue searches also allow the user to determine if the geospatial information is fit for aparticular use or purpose.
The content of a catalogue is metadata. Metadata is a description of a resource, in this case a
geospatial resource. The catalogue provides the services to search and publish the metadata for
data, services, and related types of data.
Table 4.1 Standards in Tier 1, for standard descriptions see Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing]Technology in Tier1

Relevant Standard

Visualization and Portrayal

OGC Web Map Service
OGC Web Map Tile Service
OGC Styled Layer Descriptor
OGC Symbology Encoding
OGC Web Services Context Document
IHO S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model
Part 9 - Portrayal

49

Catalogue and Discovery

ISO 19115-1:2014, Geographic information —Metadata — Part 1: Fundamentals
ISO 19115-2:2019, Geographic information —Metadata — Part 2: Extensions for acquisitionand processing
ISO 19115-3:2016, Geographic information Metadata - Part 3: XML schema implementation
for fundamental concepts
OGC Catalogue Service
Data Catalog (DCAT) Vocabulary Version 2

Tier 2 - Geospatial Information Partnerships
Tier 2 Goal (see Figure 4.2) — An information community wishes to provide access to geospatial
information over the Web, provide geospatial information download services, and in addition, may
wish to collaborate across jurisdictions on maintenance and update of specific data themes, such as
roads, from multiple sources that conform to agreed upon standards-based data models to create aconsistent and integrated definition or meaning of the geospatial information for users.
The main drivers for a move from Tier 1 to Tier 2 are:1) The need to share geospatial data rather than maps in order to support more detailed analysis
forecasting and other more powerful decision support applications, and
2) The desire to achieve interoperability within a community based on agreed upon standardsbased data models for data exchange and maintenance.

50

Figure 4.2 Tier 2 Capability Enabled by Standards

Organizations may wish to publish their geospatial information on the web. Furthermore, one ormore organizations may wish to work with other members of a community to build, share,
maintain and use datasets that provide a common operational view of important issues such as safe
navigation, flood control, road maintenance, disaster management or bush fire management andresponse. Using this approach, data providers do not need to adopt the same technology solutions
or change their database structures provided that they conform to agreed upon standards and data
models. Through the use of Tier 2 open standards, they can provide access to view, distribute, orshare geospatial information that conforms to these agreed upon standards-based data models.
As a result of the approach described above, users accessing geospatial content delivered in thisway will be able to view, process and analyze geospatial information seamlessly, even though thedata may be provided from multiple sources. Other user communities requesting geospatial
information will receive the content in a common structure (format), which will facilitate its use inadditional end user applications.
In addition to Tier 1 capabilities, Tier 2 capabilities include:• Access to geospatial information for viewing, analysis and other applications that can beprovided to all stakeholders and constituents using a consistent, well documented standardsbased approach.
• Publishing of geospatial information is enhanced by adherence to agreed upon data content
models for distribution and application. Content owners do not need to change their underlying
models, nor do they need to change their current geospatial technology provider (unless thatprovider does not provide standards-based approaches).

51

• Overall costs are reduced since existing geospatial technology can be leveraged.
• Existing geospatial information can be repurposed, with reduced reliance on format translation,
and with enhanced quality of data and services.
• Access to geospatial information and services can be controlled through access authorization.
• Collaborative data maintenance capability is enabled (see below).
The following key standards are recommended for possible use in Tier 2 (see Table 4.2 for moredetailed list).

Distributed Maintenance and Use
The goal of information models is to allow multiple stakeholders across many jurisdictions to havean agreement on how to express data for a specific domain, such as weather, geology, or land use.
Such agreements significantly enhance interoperability and the ability to share geospatial
information at any time and as required. Followings are some examples of the standards that canbe implemented for sharing geospatial information.
For

information

modellingandencoding:

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml"><em>GML</em></a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml</font>&#93; is the primary OGC/ISO standard
used for modelling, encoding, and transporting geospatial information. In addition, a number of
OGC standards reference and use <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/om">_OGC Observations
and Measurements</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/om</font>&#93;_(O&amp;M)(also

ISO</em><ahref="https://www.iso.org/standard/32574.html"><em>19156</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/32574.html</font>&#93; _)</em> . While O&amp;M isused by a number of Tier 2 recommended standards, knowledge of this standard is not required
until Tier 3.
• <ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml"><em>OGC</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/gml</font>&#93;/
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/75676.html">_ISO<a19136</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/75676.html</font>&#93;_Geography

MarkupLanguage (GML)</em> is XML grammar for expressing geographical features. GML serves as amodeling language for geographic systems as well as an open interchange format for
geographic transactions on the Internet.
For geospatial information query and access: The following standards allow the application anduser to specify geographic and attribute queries and request that the geospatial information be
returned as an encoding.
• <ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs"><em>OGC</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wfs</font>&#93;/
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/42136.html">_ISO<a
19142</em></a>size="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/42136.html</font>&#93;_Web

Feature[<fontService2.0</em> – allows requests for geographical features across the web using platformindependent calls.

52

• <a

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/fe"><em>OGC</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/fe</font>&#93;/
href="https://www.iso.org/standard/42137.html">_ISO<a19143</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/42137.html</font>&#93; _Filter Encoding 2.0</em>– allows the user/application to specify and communicate geospatial information queries using
a standard language.
• OGC Web Coverage Service (WCS) 2.0 [http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcs] – A WCS specifies standard
rules and operations for access to coverage data such as digital elevation models, multi-spectral
satellite images, and other surface covering tessellations.
• OGC/ISO 19168 API Features [http://www.ogc.org/standards/ogcapi-features] - offers the capability tocreate, modify, and query spatial data on the Web and specifies requirements andrecommendations for APIs that want to follow a standard way of sharing feature data.

Domain Data Models
Both information models and domain models are relevant to Tier 2 and Tier 3 in the evolution of an
SDI. Using such domain-specific, information or content standards helps to guarantee thatgeospatial information can be encoded and shared with consistent semantics, geometry, quality,and provenance. Some domain models are agreed between countries, such as the INSPIRE Data
Specifications, or by international organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization.
Further, data models tend to be encoding tools agnostic, meaning the content can be encoded using
XML, JSON, and other encoding technologies. Examples of these models include OGC CityGML 2.0[https://www.ogc.org/standards/citygml], ISO 19152 Geographic Information - Land Administration
DomainModel(LADM)[https://www.iso.org/standard/51206.html],

OGC

LandInfra/InfraGML[https://www.ogc.org/standards/infragml], IHO S-121 Maritime Limits and Boundariet [http://s100.iho.int/
product%20specification/division-search/s-121-maritime-limits-and-boundaries]

and

IHO

S-100

Universal

Hydrographic Data Model Part 3 - General Feature Model [https://iho.int/en/s-100-universal-hydrographicdata-model].

Table 4.2 Standards in Tier 2, for standard descriptions see Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing]Technology in Tier2

Relevant Standard

Distributed Maintenance and Use

OGC GML/ISO 19136:2007, Geographic
information — Geography Markup Language(GML)
OGC Web Feature Service/ISO 19142:2010,
Geographic information — Web Feature Service
OGC API Features /ISO 19168-1:2020, Geographic
information — Geospatial API for features —Part 1: Core
OGC Filter Encoding/ISO 19143:2010, Geographic
information — Filter encodingOGC Web
Coverage Service
OGC GeoTIFF

53

OGC GeoPackage
IETF GeoJSON
Domain Data Models

OGC CityGML
OGC LandInfra/InfraGML
ISO 19152 Geographic Information - Land
Administration Domain Model (LADM)IHO S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model
Part 3 - General Feature ModelIHO S-121 Maritime Limits and Boundaries

Tier 3 - Spatially Enabling the Nation
Tier 3 Goal (see Figure 4.3): Multiple organizations may share foundation/framework geospatial
information and services with each other and the broader community to improve knowledge andunderstanding, thereby contributing to evidence-based decision making, situational awareness,and improved societal outcomes.
Implementations in Tier 3 allow participants and stakeholders to extend the value of theirgeospatial information assets by sharing these assets with others, thereby leveraging geospatial
information from other providers. Groups working in different application domains are able toshare their data, discover and access data produced by others, and benefit from improved
understanding and knowledge. The same geospatial information that is needed for land use
planning may also have value for flood prevention and mitigation, environmental monitoring andremediation, efficient transportation and logistics, and public safety. Organizations can also
improve their understanding and awareness of rapidly changing events by incorporating new
information sourced from smartphones, as well as information from mobile and static sensors.
Incorporation of crowd-sourced or Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) geospatial
information can be accommodated.

54

Figure 4.3 Tier 3 Capability Enabled by Standards

The development and publication of these "foundation" or "framework" spatial data such asimagery, transportation, administrative boundaries, using content and technology standards andgood practices enable geospatial data from different providers to be easily integrated and used
across multiple applications domains, so that decision making is based upon a common
understanding.
Figure 4.4 depicts potential "foundation" geospatial information themes shared between and among
many organizations and constituents.

Figure 4.4 Example: Foundation geospatial information layers (Source:_ ANZLIC [http://link.fsdf.org.au/]_)Geospatial information can be designed for delivery across multiple platforms and can be
discovered, described, and accessed via web-based catalogs. Essential geospatial information
themes are made available as "foundation" or "framework" data. These foundation themes have55

known accuracy and currency so that other geospatial data can be consistently integrated. UNGGIM [http://ggim.un.org/UNGGIM-wg2/] Working Group on Global Fundamental Geospatial Data
Themes [http://ggim.un.org/UNGGIM-wg2/] have developed 14 foundational data themes in support of
the UN-GGIM program of work.

Capabilities of Tier 3• Capabilities of Tiers 1 and 2• Delivery of foundation or framework geospatial information for online access and download• Geoprocessing (also known as Geo-Analytics)• Mobile applications• Customized Web applications• Integration of real time sensor feeds• Customized geographic information products.

Typical Scenarios• A nation begins the implementation of a National SDI to deliver foundational or framework
geospatial data for the nation. This may be an effort that starts from scratch or builds on
domain specific activities characterized in Tier 2• Provision of geoprocessing services over the web• Delivery to multiple platforms including desktop and mobile• Incorporation of real time data from a variety of sensors• Account for data sovereignty• A robust framework of geospatial information management policies has been established fororganizations operating from the local to national level. In place are:◦ Well defined geospatial data themes,◦ Data content models,◦ Policies for data access and sharing,◦ Service level agreements between organizations and governments for operations andcooperative maintenance of data themes.
Multiple organizations share foundation/framework geospatial information and services with eachother and the broader community to improve knowledge and understanding, thereby contributing
to evidence-based decision making, situational awareness, and improved societal outcomes.
In this Tier, the infrastructure is mature enough to support deployment of more and more
applications to enhance value, provide increased citizen benefit, increase collaboration between
organizations. There is also the introduction and integration of an increasing number of geospatial
information resources, including volunteered and real time sensor feeds. We will also see mature
deployment of mobile applications. The standards mentioned in the Tier 3 and related URLs arelisted in Table 4.3.

56

Geospatial Processing & Analytics
Processing in the most general sense means - on their way from server to client tool (and thenpossibly onwards to client screen) data gets modified. In a simple scenario this is already done by
an OGC WMS [http://www.ogc.org/standards/wms] when it applies "styling" to a layer. However,processing can be highly complex, such as processing to generate long-running server-side
simulations. In recent years, "analytics'' has become a common term for - loosely speaking processing done for gaining insight. Following the Big Data principle of "process data close to thesource" because data are "too big to transport", such processing tasks are preferably executed on
the server that houses the data.".
The approach for this process, which almost exclusively[23]

uses the WWW http protocol, is that aclient sends a request encoded as a URL (which contains the processing task, objects addressed,
result formats, and any further parameters needed).
While there is general consensus on the advantages of "shipping code to data" there are a range ofoptions on how to do this; the alternatives below are each represented by a standard, allowing
service providers to pick their favorites:• Purely RESTful approaches encode processing directives in the path component of a request
URL, sometimes (such as for format encoding) also in key/value pairs in the URL. This allows
requests consisting of a single-line URL, in the extreme case typed directly into a browser
address line by a user savvy with the particular syntax. Obviously, this has very limited
expressiveness, with little degree of freedom for the user (or client program) sending such arequest.
• OGC Web Processing Service (WPS) [https://www.ogc.org/standards/wps] – provides rules forstandardizing how inputs and outputs (requests and responses) for geospatial processing
services, such as generating a polygon overlay. The standard also defines how a client canrequest the execution of a process, and how the output from the process is handled. It defines
an interface that facilitates the publishing of geospatial processes and the clients' discovery ofand binding to those processes, thereby establishing "syntactic interoperability". The datarequired by the WPS can be delivered across a network or they can be available at the server.
Processes are predefined by the administrator and users can only provide their individual input
parameters. A particular use case for WPS is making a Web service out of code that originally
was not Web-ready. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wps• OGC Web Coverage Processing Service (WCPS) [https://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps] - provides adatacube analytics language [https://earthserver.xyz/wcs/#wcps] for server-side Big Earth Data
processing. Without any programming, users can send any query, any time to the server forprocessing directly at the data source. Further it is possible to provide the user’s own
parameters alongside with a query, for example to compare or combine an user’s dataset with aserver-side dataset. On the administrator side there is no configuration necessary. As of thiswriting,

multi-PetabyteEarthdatacubes

are

being

servedoperationally

via

WCPS

[https://earthserver.xyz/], with location-transparent distributed datacube fusion over globally
networked data centers.
OGC and EU INSPIRE have adopted WCPS [http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps] OGC 08-068r2[https://external.ogc.org/twiki_public/pub/CoveragesDWG/CoveragesBigPicture/08-068r3_Web-Coverage-ProcessingService-Language_2020-08-11.pdf]as the analytics component of the WCS suite.

57

Grid Systems
A DGGS is a spatial reference system that uses a hierarchical tessellation of cells to partition andaddress the globe. The OGC Discrete Global Grid Systems (DGGS) [http://docs.opengeospatial.org/as/15104r5/15-104r5.html] and the _ISO 19170 Geographic Information: Core Reference System andOperations[http://www.iso.org/standard/32588.html]

are

key

standards

forunderstanding

andimplementing DGGS. DGGS are characterized by the properties of their cell structure, geo-encoding,quantization strategy and associated mathematical functions. The OGC DGGS Abstract Specification[https://docs.opengeospatial.org/as/15-104r5/15-104r5.html] supports the specification of standardized DGGS
infrastructures that enable the integrated analysis of very large, multi-source, multi-resolution,
multi-dimensional,

distributed

geospatial

data.

Interoperability

between

OGC

DGGS

implementations is anticipated through implementation standards, and extension interface
encodings of OGC Web Services. This specification has particular benefit in the context ofintegrating geospatial and statistical Information and has been referenced in the Global Statistical
Spatial Framework [http://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/9th-Session/documents/The_GSGF.pdf].

Mobile Devices
Increasingly, mobile devices are becoming a key source for geospatial data capture, maintenance,
and application. These capabilities are in addition to the simple ability to display maps to a mobile
device as required in Tier 1. While OGC web services standards noted above work in the mobileinternet environment, we note that there are other adopted and in-work standards that may be of
relevance to Tier 3:• <a href="https://www.ogc.org/standards/opengeosms"><em>OGC Open GeoSMS</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/standards/opengeosms</font>&#93;

isanadopted

OGC

standard that defines a standard approach to encoding a geo-tag for an SMS message. _OpenGeoSMS</em> enables mobile users to transparently send location information in the header of
their mobile text messages.
• OGC GeoPackage [http://www.geopackage.org/spec/] standard is an open, app-independent, platformindependent, portable, interoperable, self-describing data container and API. Designed formobile applications, this standard is intended to support multiple mapping and geospatial
applications such as fixed product distribution, local data collection, and geospatially enabled
analytics.

Real time
Increasingly, geospatial information is being generated as the result of real time observations being
captured by in-situ and dynamic (moving) sensor systems. These information resources provide theability to enhance decision making, situational awareness, quality of life, sustainability, and otheruseful functions. Anyone with a smart phone is already using or accessing real time sensor
information, such as the current temperature at a particular location.
The OGC has a suite of standards that allow applications and services to describe, task, and request
observations from one or more sensors. This suite of sensor standards is called <ahref="https://www.ogc.org/node/698"><em>OGC Sensor Web Enablement (SWE)</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/node/698</font>&#93;. The OGC uses the following definition fora sensor:<br> _"An entity capable of observing a phenomenon and returning an observed

58

value."</em>
The type of observation procedure determines the estimated value of an observed property as its
output. A web or internet accessible sensor is any sensor that has an IP address that can provide or
be tasked to provide an observation. Sensors can be in a fixed position or mobile. An excellent
example of an OGC SWE implementation is the US NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)[https://ioos.noaa.gov/]. This system provides real time access to mobile and in-situ ocean observing
sensor systems. These sensors are obtained from numerous different technology providers, alldescribed, tasked, and accessed using OGC SWE standards. Other excellent examples of operationaluse of OGC SWE standards are:• Sensors

Anywhere(SANY)[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pier-Marchetti/publication/

258644058_Heterogenous_Missions_Accessibility/links/56960b3d08ae3ad8e33d9d8c/Heterogenous-MissionsAccessibility.pdf] - SANY aims to improve the interoperability of in-situ sensors and sensor

networks, allowing quick and cost-efficient reuse of data and services from currently
incompatible sources in future environmental risk management applications.
• The Heterogeneous Missions Accessibility (HMA) [https://earth.esa.int/documents/1656065/1681917/TM21.pdf] initiative aims to harmonize ground segment interface activities for Earth observation(EO) missions.
The main SWE suite of standards are:• <a href="https://www.ogc.org/standards/om"><em>OGC/ISO Observations &amp; Measurements
Schema(O&amp;M)</em></a>om</font>&#93;_/</em><a[<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/standards/

href="https://www.iso.org/standard/32574.html"><em>ISO19156</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">https://www.iso.org/standard/32574.html</font>&#93; –An OGC standard that defines conceptual models for encoding observations and measurementsfrom a sensor, both archived and real-time.
• OGC Observations and Measurements XML (OMXML) [https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=41510] –GML/XML encoding of the abstract O&M model.
• OGC Sensor Model Language (SensorML) [https://www.ogc.org/standards/sensorml] – An OGC standard
that defines standard models and XML Schema for describing sensors systems and processes;
provides information needed for discovery of sensors, location of sensor observations,processing of low-level sensor observations, and listing of task-able properties.
• OGC Sensor Observations Service (SOS) [https://www.ogc.org/standards/sos] - An OGC standard thatspecifies a standard web service interface for requesting, filtering, and retrieving observations
and sensor system information. This is the intermediary between a client and an observation
repository or near real-time sensor channel.
• OGC Sensor Planning Service (SPS) [https://www.ogc.org/standards/sps] – An OGC adopted standard
that specifies standard web service interface for requesting user-driven acquisitions andobservations. This is the intermediary between a client and a sensor collection management
environment.
More and more SDIs are integrating real time sensor feeds. This real time information is used toenhance situational awareness or is fused with other geospatial information resources to enhance
decision support. Another key use for real time sensor information is to feed modelling systems
that are used to predict severe weather events, tsunamis, debris flows, and other potential

59catastrophic events that impact human lives.

Figure 4.5 SeaDataNet employs OGC Sensor Web standards to ease access, ingest and viewing ofobservations from a range of fixed and mobile sensor assetsAfurtherstandard

toconsider

is

the

<a

href="https://www.ogc.org/standards/sensorthings"><em>OGC SensorThings API</em></a> [<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/standards/sensorthings</font>&#93;. The _OGC SensorThings
API</em> is an OGC standard specification for providing an open and unified way to interconnect
IoT devices, data, and applications over the Web. The <em>SensorThings API</em> is an open
standard, builds on Web protocols and the <a href="https://www.ogc.org/node/698"><em>OGC
Sensor Web Enablement</em></a> [<font size="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/node/698</font>&#93;<a href="https://www.ogc.org/node/698">standards</a> [<font size="0.85em">https://www.ogc.org/
node/698</font>&#93;, and applies an easy-to-use REST-like style. The result is to provide a uniform
way to expose the full potential of the Internet of Things.
Notably, there is a close connection between sensor and coverage standards as they share, among
others, the identical sensor semantics description. Hence, an upstream SOS service might collectand homogenize data which subsequently get stored and served as coverages by the downstreamoptimized WCS, WCPS, WMS, WPS, and all other standards supporting coverages, without any lossof semantics.

GeoSemantics
GeoSemantics means that data is explicitly defined, persistently and uniquely identified, andtransferred into machine-actionable format that supports quick data interlinking, searchability,interpretation, and reuse that improves the data integration and analysis on the Web.
GeoSemantics uses the web linked data pattern, and is supported by a set of standards, practices,and tools for publishing and linking structured data on the Web.

60

The ISO 19150 (Geographic information – Ontology) series of standards are developed to support
semantic web. ISO 19150-1 [https://www.iso.org/standard/57465.html] defines the framework for semanticinteroperability of geographic information. This framework defines a high-level model of thecomponents required to handle semantics in the ISO geographic information standards through theuse of ontologies.
The <a href="https://www.w3.org/groups/ig/sdw">Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group</a> [<fontsize="0.85em">https://www.w3.org/groups/ig/sdw</font>&#93;(W3C/OGC) is one of the communities
that is providing significant input to development of good practices and vocabularies thatencourage better sharing of spatial data on the Web; and identify areas where standards should be
developed

jointly

by

both

W3C,

OGC

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosparql">_OGC

and

ISO,

including

GeoSPARQL</em></a>size="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/geosparql</font>&#93;and
href="http://www.iso.org/standard/57465.html">_ISO

19150</em></a><a[<font<a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.iso.org/standard/57465.html</font>&#93;.
Table 4.3 Standards in Tier 3, for standard descriptions see Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing]Technology in Tier3

Relevant Standard

Geospatial Processing & Analytics

OGC Web Processing Service (WPS)
OGC GroundWaterML

Grid Systems

OGC Discrete Global Grid Systems (DGGS)

Mobile Devices

OGC Open GeoSMS
OGC GeoPackage

Real Time

OGC/ISO Observations & Measurements Schema(O&M) / ISO 19156
OGC Observations and Measurements XML(OMXML)
OGC Sensor Model Language (SensorML)
OGC Sensor Observations Service (SOS)OGC Sensor Planning Service (SPS)OGC SWE Common Data Model EncodingStandard
OGC SWE Service Model Implementation
Standard
OGC SensorThings API
OGC Moving Features

61

GeoSemantics

ISO 19150-1 Geographic information – Ontology(Part 1: Framework)
ISO 19150-2 Geographic information – Ontology(Part 2: Rules for developing ontologies in the
Web Ontology Language (OWL))
ISO 19150-4 Geographic information – Ontology(Part 4: Service ontology)
OGC GeoSPARQLW3C Semantic Sensor Network Ontology

Tier 4 – Future Capabilities: Spatial Data Integrated
with Global Data Ecosystem
This document has identified the levels of capability that are enabled by geospatial information andthe associated technologies and standards that make up a mature local to global SDI. Through the
adoption of standards, increasing levels of interoperability can be achieved, with geospatial
information becoming more easily accessed, managed, shared, and used for improved situationalawareness and decision making. Through use of core standards recommended in this document,
the decision to share becomes a policy decision, uninhibited by technological limitations ofgeospatial information incompatibility issues.
With the rapid pace of technological advancement and the emergence of new data sources andinnovative practices, we are seeing the integration of location data and resources in an everexpanding "Geospatial Web".
Organizational policies, standards, and associated good practices will need to evolve to make iteasier to apply these new technologies, information sources and processes. This evolution should
also be implemented in the more general context of the importance of geospatial information
management to international sustainable development goals as discussed in Monitoring
Sustainable Development Contribution of Geospatial Information to the Rio+20 Processes[http://ggim.un.org/knowledgebase/Attachment2200.aspx?AttachmentType=1].
Figure 4.6 implies a point in the future when a geospatial infrastructure will be complete or fully
realized. The reality, however, is that the market is delivering technology advancements on acontinual basis. Many of these advancements will help to further improve organizational decision
making and reduce cost and effort associated with IT infrastructure. Organizational leadershipmust be prepared to take advantage of key technology advancements when they become widely
available.

62

Figure 4.6 Future capabilities will be mobilized more quickly via standards

To take advantage of these trends we recommend that appropriate organizational staff:• Leverage the global resources of groups such as the UN-GGIM, SDOs, and other major
associations mentioned in this document to identify trends, and to adopt good practices.
• Participate in standards development work of OGC, ISO/TC 211 and IHO to understand
implications and assure earliest implementation of standards that will help ease integration of
new technologies. At a minimum, organizations and institutions should consider providing
their interoperability requirements to the OGC, ISO, and/or IHO. This does not require muchtime but ensures that these requirements are documented and considered in the ongoingdevelopment of international standards.

Standards in Tier 4
As our global web of information continues to increase with both data and technology, our capacity
to share geospatial data increases towards becoming a spatially enabled web of data.
For general understanding of the industry trends the reader is referred to the UN-GGIM report, "Future Trends in geospatial information management: five to ten year vision [https://ggim.un.org/
meetings/GGIM-committee/10th-Session/documents/Future_Trends_Report_THIRD_EDITION_digital_accessible.pdf]"

for details on what we believe to be the technological, legal, policy, and consumer trends impacting
the collection, use, and visualization of geospatial information.
To assist in understanding these trends in a geospatial standards context, the OGC has worked withits membership, alliance partners and others to develop and maintain the OGC Technology Trends[http://www.ogc.org/OGCTechTrends].

This

research

informstheroad-mappingforstandards

63development, thus ensuring that necessary standards are developed at pace with technology
development.
These trends are driving requirements for enhancing existing geospatial standards, rethinking andcrafting a new generation of standards based on the lessons learned of the existing baseline, andincorporating new suites of standards required to leverage the value of the emerging technologies
and user requirements.
There could be several different views on the trends driving new areas of standards development
or new applications of existing standards. One of many such views, which combine the UN-GGIM
and OGC’s trends, is presented below (Figure 4.7):

Figure 4.7 Trends driving New Areas of Standards Development

The following are a few of the trends driving new areas of standards development or new
applications of existing standards as they are listed in Figure 4.7. The standards mentioned in Tier 4along with related SDOs (Standard Development Organizations) are listed in Table 4.4.
Sensing and Observations• Outdoor & Indoor Mapping – Through the convergence of Geographic Information System(GIS) and Building Information Modelling (BIM), seamless experience between outdoor andindoor mapping becomes an expectation. GIS and BIM will likely converge as users are
increasingly expecting a seamless experience between indoor and outdoor mapping. In
addition, over the long-term, 5G could be used to augment positioning services as low latency

64may use the time difference of arrival between sending and receiving antennas. Using thegeometry of the antennas will make it possible to calculate the angle from which the signal
arrives and as the number of measurements increase an accuracy of 5 centimeters or better canbe expected. The main barrier yet to overcome is the need for investment in 5G infrastructure
to obtain complete coverage. GNSS and 5G in combination and GIS-BIM interoperability may
also prove very effective for seamless indoor and outdoor positioning and mapping.
• Real-Time Information– Today, sensor networks are increasingly common in cities providing
near real-time information on temperature, moisture, noise, and pollution levels, enhancing
efficiencies and enabling data-driven decision-making by both public and private stakeholders.
Real-time information applications already assist many municipalities in their decision-making
processes and there is an ever-growing need for status updates on one or more devices to be as
timely as possible. As digitalization improves, real-time information will assist moreorganizations in their everyday processes, particularly those responding to emergency events,
such as disasters and disease outbreaks. The ability for smart city services to be built upon highquality geospatial base data which is required to plan, build, operate and maintain assets will
enable many future high value services to be developed to enable smart cities.
• New Space Exploration – Technological advances in Earth observation have created a stepchange in the quality, accuracy, and precision available which makes it possible to map fromspace with ever increasing resolution worldwide.
• High-Resolution High-Revisit Earth Observation –The increasing availability of highresolution satellite imagery has transformed remote sensing by improving accessibility andfrequency of updates; thus, enabling better evidence-based decision-making and service
delivery. In several countries, the seasonality of water features plays a crucial role. Enhancedwith the combined use of SAR data, high-resolution imagery that provides insight into waterflows and water levels are increasingly utilized. The currently under-exploited high-resolution
high-revisit imagery sources are expected to become more widely used and have the potential
to become a valid alternative to aerial imagery. Yet, at the moment, there are only few globallyconsistent sources of high-resolution high-revisit data. For nations to see the benefits of thesedevelopments, the cost of purchasing will have to decrease and/or access will need to bebroadened.

Geospatial Big Data Sources• Datacubes - this concept, defined in the ISO/OGC/INSPIRE Coverage standards, unifies gridded("raster") data offering several critical advantages:◦ Datacubes work across all dimensions using all the same handling for Latitude, Longitude,height, depth, time, etc. In particular, combining data across dimensions (such as 2D DEMs,
3D x/y/t image timeseries and 4D x/y/z/t climate data) gets simple and well-defined.
◦ Datacubes

serve

to

homogenize

themillionsof"scenes"(i.e.,

sensor-oriented

representations) into very few datacubes (i.e., user-oriented representations), such as just
one single cube for every Landsat, Sentinel, etc. instrument.
◦ The powerful concepts of the OGC Coverage data model allow modelling of any gridsituation, including any number of dimensions, regular and irregular axes (such as regular
Lat/Long orthoimages plus an irregular timeseries), and with encodings in a series offormats ranging from XML, JSON, and RDF over JPEG2000 to OGC NetCDF.

65

◦ As such, datacubes are an accepted cornerstone towards Analysis-Ready Data (ARD), a visionof liberating users from all the hassle of data wrangling allowing them to concentrate on
gaining insight from Big Data.
◦ Suitable

services,

such

as

the

"actionable

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps"><em>OGC

datacubes"

providedby

WCPS</em></a>

the

<a

[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/wcps</font>&#93; datacube analytics language,
allow any query at any time in a fast and simple manner; in practice, such _WCPS</em>
queries today often are generated automatically from clients doing visualization (such as
QGIS, WorldWind or Cesium) or analytics (such as Jupyter notebooks or numpy).
• Linked Data – The concept often related to Big Data (see also below under "Geospatial Data
Science")and other newer sources of geospatial content is "linked data". Linked data is a concept
related to the semantic web. From W3C, "The Semantic Web isn’t just about putting data on theweb. It is about making links, so that a person or machine can explore the web of data. With
linked data, when you have some of it, you can find other, related, data." Wikipedia defines
Linked Data as "a term used to describe a recommended best practice for exposing, sharing, andconnecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs andRDF.".
• Multiple Data sources – A Digital Twin is a digital representation of a physical asset thatenables users to visualize it, check the asset’s status, perform analysis, and generate insights topredict and optimize its performance. In comparison to static 3D models, Digital Twins are
directly linked to multiple data sources and receive updates continuously.
• Crowdsourcing & Volunteered Geographic Information – Geo Crowdsourcing includes social
media and VGI. Crowdsourcing refers to the process of obtaining geo inspired services, ideas, orcontent by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, especially an online
community, rather than from employees or suppliers. Land administration in developing
countries can benefit from Crowdsourcing and VGI as missing and outdated authoritative land
and tenure information are often due to the lack of human, budgetary or other resources.
However, questions around quality continue to hold back the wider uptake of crowdsourced
information by public bodies of developed countries. Still, as technology matures and new
possibilities arise, new processes and algorithms continue to be developed with the aim thatdata sources will comply with the same standards and quality that is expected of authoritative
data.

Digital Transformation Infrastructure• Cloud Native & Edge Computing – Cloud computing and the internet have transformed theway in which organizations manage data. It has been designed to treat IT as a scalable service
that can increase or decrease capacity to match user demands, leverage shared technologies
and Open API hardware, and ultimately realize economies of scale. Edge computing enables
reliability, mitigates risk, and facilitates situational awareness of autonomous systems. For
instance, edge computing is set to provide faster access to information with IoT enabled devices,such as autonomous vehicles, drones, and sensors. When combined with the Semantic Web,edge computing will interconnect the physical and information technology world bysimultaneously generating and harvesting spatial data and producing this data in a format thatcan be queried by both humans and computers to deliver new information; thus, providing
knowledge-on-demand.

66• Spatial Data on the Web – OGC and the W3C are working together to advise on good practices
for the publication of spatial data on the Web, based on the Semantic Web´s concept of Linked
Data. Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice [https://https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/] is a joint
document between the OGC and the W3C that identifies good practices for publishing spatial
data on the Web.
• Open API Management – Interoperability, accessibility, and discoverability of data – via data
portals, application programming interfaces (APIs), and linked identifiers – will enable effective
data use. The explosive growth of public APIs for geospatial applications, and the accompanying
variability in API practices across the IT industry, as well as in geospatial APIs specifically, hascreated new opportunities and challenges in supporting geospatial services. This development
will transform the OGC WPS into Open API-Processes, resulting in syntax designed for that andthe administrators will have to build some YAML configuration files as well as JSON data
structures for processes that can be invoked subsequently. In the OGC Open API initiative there
is an ongoing development of a specification aimed at these types of services. The plan is likely
to be adopted in 2022/2023 (depending on each component). For greater understanding in thisarea visit OGC Open APIs – Building Blocks for Location [https://ogcapi.ogc.org/].
• Model Interoperability – Relevance of data integration and interoperability increase. An OGC
White Paper (Data Models and Interoperability [https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=3805/])
provides an excellent discussion on establishing agreed upon data models for data sharing andenhancing interoperability.

Geospatial Data Science• Big Data Processing – Big data processing has become a normal path of geospatial dataprocessing. It will be the norm as machine learning and deep learning mature and become
established functions in geospatial production. In order to properly address many sustainability
issues, the world of big science needs to be fused with the SDI and Earth Observation
communities. Some of this collaboration and fusion is happening in the Open Geospatial
Consortium in the Meteorology, Hydrology, and Emergency and Disaster Management Working
Groups (https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/wg). These working groups are defining goodpractices for integrating domain specific observations, modeling, and scientific research intocurrent and future information infrastructures using existing standards. The foundational dataand service models are being developed and advanced by the Coverages Working Group(https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/wg). (See also the section on Processing and Analytics
above.)• AI & Deep Learning – Machine learning, deep learning and Artificial Intelligence haveestablished themselves as disruptive forces within the geospatial domain. Although pure
Artificial Intelligence is still in the research stage, several sources have highlighted that coding
has a level of bias because of which Artificial Intelligence systems need to be built by a diverse
team. Given that Artificial Intelligence, statistics and geospatial are coming together rapidly andbeing promoted as the next 'big thing' to enable evidence-based decision making and policy
delivery, it is crucial that diversity within all types of teams is high on the technology agenda.

User Interfaces• Immersive Geo: AR XR – Visualizations and immersive technology widely used to enhancecustomer experience and decision making. New immersive technologies are revolutionizing the67

way in which users interact with digital information by enabling real-time 3D representations
and immersing the user in digitally generated or enhanced realities. The technologies enable
the user to interact with simulations and visually relate to the information sensors provide. The
combination of geospatial data, virtual reality software and other datasets makes it possible toexperience a built environment before it has been constructed. As advances towards creating
Digital Twins are made, this new functionality will likely enable a virtual representation of aplace or building that can be navigated via a VR headset.
• Urban Digital Twins – With concepts such as the "Digital Twin" for our world increase ininterest and popularity, so too does the need for richer and more detailed 3D models to assist us
in understanding the world around us. This area covers a broad range of tasks including 3D
Computer graphics and 3D Modelling. The concept of the city Digital Twin is progressing rapidly,
and it is almost impossible for effective urban planning to take place without the availability of
sensors, image capture and processing, and data analysis technology. Digital Twins are set toenable an asset-centric approach helping to model, simulate and predict the performance ofassets, systems, and processes within the urban environment and when fully integrated should
provide autonomous operations and maintenance. Described as the highest form of Digital Twin
maturity, the technology will enable complete self-governance and offer transparency byminimizing cost, lowering environmental impact, reducing operational risk, and improving
operational reliability.

Domain Specific Applications• Responding to COVID-19 – Recent emergency incidents, such as the global Covid-19 pandemic,
have significantly prompted large scale projects aiming to improve the availability, quality, andaccessibility of geospatial data in support of sustainable development.
• Digital Twins for Smart Cities – Viable integrated Digital Twins for Smart City solutions is
becoming widespread. City municipalities have emerged as a highly engaged user of geospatial
information, particularly since the rise of smart city solutions and Digital Twin technology havebecome available. Early examples of digital representations of city infrastructure have enabledmunicipalities to monitor and simulate scenarios related to climate change and flooding events
while mitigating risks and increasing infrastructure resilience. This focus on the urban
environment will continue to drive the development of viable integrated smart city solutions
across the world.
• Connected Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) – Trusted geospatial data enables the acceleration of
the development, deployment, and safety of CAVs. Location data for planning and testing in asynthetic environment also provides geo-referencing in places where full connectivity andsensor feeds cannot be guaranteed. By the end of the 2020s, it is anticipated that the sensor
technology inherent in CAVs will be sufficient to operate independently. When connected toother vehicles (V2V), to infrastructure (V2I), or to the surrounding 'smart' environment (V2X),
CAVs may not require any additional location data to safely navigate on public roads.
• Digital Ethics & Privacy – Advances in how data is used and the deployment of emerging
technology puts increasing pressure on understanding, anticipating, and responding toemerging ethical issues. The use of geospatial information poses serious ethical questions
related to privacy, accuracy, and accessibility. Ethics related to geospatial information
management focuses on the relationship between the creation, organization, dissemination,and use of geospatial data and services, and the ethical standards and moral codes governing68

human conduct in society. Government, business, and individuals can equally be affected bycyber-attacks leading to infringements of privacy, disruption of services, and national security
risks. The advent of autonomous vehicles represents a significant source for cyber threats as thevehicles will be connected to networks such as the internet. Without cybersecurity, the ability to
exploit the increasing availability of data and the rapid technological advancements will be atincreased risk.
Table 4.4 Standards in Tier 4 (for standard descriptions see Appendix 1 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DAb4QinqlEecqFzvtqi7JpnX7zzpdZJM/view?usp=sharing])

Technology in Tier4

Relevant Standard or
Relevant Standard
Developing Organization WG

Sensing and Observations

Outdoor & Indoor Mapping

OGC IndoorGML
OGC CityGML
OGC IMDF
ISO/TC 59/SC 13/JWG 14 "Joint
ISO/TC 59/SC 13 - ISO/TC 211
WG: GIS-BIM
interoperability"

Real-Time Information

OGC Moving Features

New Space Exploration

OGC/ISO Coverage
Implementation Schema (CIS)and OGC Web Coverage Service(WCS)
General Bathymetric Chart of
the Oceans [https://www.gebco.net/] (GEBCO)

High-Resolution High-Revisit

IEEE Geoscience and Remote

Earth Observation

Sensing

Society-

Working

Group

for

SAR

-

SAR

Metadata Content Standard
OGC/ISO

Coverage

Implementation Schema (CIS)and OGC Web Coverage Service(WCS)Geospatial Big Data Sources

Linked Data

W3C Resource Description
Framework (RDF)
OGC GeoSPARQL
W3C Time Ontology in OWL

Multiple Data Sources

OGC Web Coverage Processing
Service (WCPS)-

Crowdsourcing & VGI

OGC LandInfra / InfraGML

69

Digital Transformation Infra

Cloud Native & Edge Computing ISO/IEC TR 23188:2020
ITU-T Study Group 13 "Future
networks, with focus on IMT2020, cloud computing andtrusted network
infrastructure"
Spatial Data on the Web

W3C Spatial Data on the Web
Interest Group
OGC Web Processing Service
OGC Web Map Service
OGC Web Coverage Processing
Service

Open API Management

OGC API - Features
GeoAPI Implementation
Specification
OGC API - Features - Part 3:
Filtering and the Common
Query Language

Model Interoperability

ISO/IEC19763-1:2015(Metamodel framework forinteroperability) (MFI) family ofstandards

Geospatial Data Science

Big Data Processing

OGC Hierarchical Data Format
Version 5 (HDF5) Standard

AI & Deep Learning

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 42 "Artificial
intelligence"
Y.3172, Architectural
framework for machinelearning in future networks
including IMT-2020
Information technology —Artificial Intelligence (AI) —Bias in AI systems and AI aided
decision making

User Interfaces

Immersive Geo: AR XR

OGC Augmented Reality
Markup Language 2.0 (ARML
2.0)

Urban Digital Twins70

OGC CityGML

5. Ongoing Management
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to:* Authorize and resource a standards maintenance process essential for maintaining an effective
national geospatial information management and sharing environment.
* Understand how to remain current with advancements in standards through periodic review
with standards bodies and communities of practice.
* Discuss, identify, and submit requirements for standards to address interoperability issues
through standards bodies at the organizational, national, and international levels.
* Understand how they can share experiences and standards success stories with others.
This section is intended for people who are responsible for systems and applications that
implement open standards. The systems might be server applications offering standardized
interfaces or client applications that consume a standardized interface. The system might also
produce or consume data that conforms to one or more data standards. This section focuses on
three key areas of value that can have positive impact to ongoing geospatial information
management by keeping systems and solutions cost effective and adaptive to change:• Establishing and participating in a *Standards Review Program* to maintain currency with newand emerging geospatial standards.
• Engaging with *Communities of Practice (COP)* to share experiences and benefit from successstories and lessons learned by other community members that are implementing standardsbased solutions.

Standards Review Program
A standards review program is a plan and process for implementing new and maintaining existing
standards. SDOs typically have a form of standards review program, which over time leads to new
standards and improvements to existing standards.
New and improved standards are driven by user community requirements. This is a reason forengaging with the standardization process. There may be opportunities for users and implementersof standards to engage and ensure that their requirements are captured in the standardization
process, and those participating in standards review can serve as effective intermediaries between
the user and standards bodies to ensure that requirements are properly articulated and addressed.
Furthermore, SDOs may periodically update existing standards to address extended capabilities or
to correct issues, or to provide additional guidance on implementation.
The standardization landscape also changes as technology and software development methods
change. The OGC API modernization [http://ogcapi.ogc.org/] activity, for example, is aimed in part at
adapting the existing OGC Web Services (OWS) standards to the current application development
environment. OGC APIs will propose (but not mandate) the use of OpenAPI for describing API
endpoints. This should improve the ease with which client applications can be created to use APIs.
The OGC APIs will also be compatible with existing OWS standards.
International open standards may evolve from wide-scale implementation of proprietary
specifications. Increasingly, organizations are submitting these de facto standards to SDOs to be71formally endorsed as Community standards or for consideration as international open standards.
From an OGC perspective, Community standards can serve two purposes, to:• Bring de facto standards from the larger geospatial community to be a stable reference pointthat can normatively referenced by governments and other organizations.
• Bring new, but implemented, standards to the OGC to form the basis for further refinement and[24]

development of interoperability between other OGC standards.

The <a href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/i3s"><em>OGC Indexed 3D Scene Layers (I3S)</em></a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/i3s</font>&#93;

href="http://www.ogc.org/standards/3DTiles">_OGC

and

3DTiles</em></a><a[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/3DTiles</font>&#93; standards submitted by OGC
industry members followed this route. For a list of OGC Community Standards, visit <ahref="http://www.ogc.org/standards/community">www.ogc.org/standards/community</a>[<fontsize="0.85em">http://www.ogc.org/standards/community</font>&#93;
As changes to standards will likely occur during the lifecycle of a system, it is important that
persons responsible for planning, acquisition and maintenance of systems are aware of thesechanges. Several nations have in place comprehensive standards review programs which monitor
the standards environment and recommend / endorse new and updated standards to keep pacewith new community needs and key information and technology market advancements. It is
recommended to keep up-to-date with and align to the relevant national standards review
programs and even consider becoming involved in the standardization process if the relevant
review program invites participation from organizations as stakeholders.
Examples of national and supranational bodies responsible for standards review programs are:
• FGDC Standards Working Group (US) https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/organization/FGDCSWG/index\_html [https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/organization/FGDC-SWG/index_html]• Geonovum(themembership

Netherlands)of

https://www.geonovum.nl/

ForumStandaardisatie[https://www.geonovum.nl/]with

https://forumstandaardisatie.nl/[https://forumstandaardisatie.nl/]• GeoConnections(Canada)https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/science-research/earth-sciences/geomatics/canadas-spatial-data-infrastructure/10783[https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/

science-research/earth-sciences/geomatics/canadas-spatial-data-infrastructure/10783]• National System of Statistical and Geographical Information (Sistema Nacional de Informacion
EstadisticayGeográfica-SNIEG)(INEGI-Mexico)

http://www.snieg.mx/scn-acerca-de/[http://www.snieg.mx/scn-acerca-de/]• INSPIRE (European Union) https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/ [https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/] Community
Forum https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/inspire-helpdesk [https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/inspire-helpdesk]

Communities of PracticeAn effective approach for ongoing management of systems and solutions that implement open
standards is to network with representatives from other organizations at the national andinternational levels. By sharing experiences in implementing standards-based geospatial
information management capabilities, organizations benefit from the successes and lessons
72

learned by others. The SDO community engages with a range of Communities of Practice (CoP) suchas Aviation, Agriculture, Energy and Utilities, Marine, Earth Systems, and Land Administration.
These and other CoPs participate in OGC, ISO/TC 211 and IHO as well as in professional associations
to align to a common set of standards and good practices for information sharing.
For example, there are international programs working to bring together the world’s national
geological surveys and soils organizations as CoPs in order to agree on a common, federated
approach for sharing globally the vital information these organizations produce and maintain at
the national level.
One Geology [http://www.onegeology.org/] is an association that brings together national geologicalsurveys and cooperating international organizations to address its mission to 'Make webaccessible the best available geological and other geoscience data worldwide at the best
possible scales, starting with at least 1:1 million scale.' National geologic data is integrated overan area of interest and made available over the web based on a well-documented OGC web services
standards architecture

[25]

.

Similarly, The Global Soils Information System (GLOSIS) [http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/
areas-of-work/soil-information-and-data/en/], part of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Global

Soil Partnership, employs OGC web services to connect national soils data for access through acommon web services framework.
Many CoPs exist at the national level to facilitate communication, develop good practice
documentation and guidelines, and often act as a conduit between global CoP and/or Standards
Organizations.
The Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC) [http://ardc.edu.au/]is a transformational initiativethat enables Australian research community and industry access to nationally significant, leadingedge data intensive eInfrastructure, platforms, skills, and collections of high-quality data. The ARDC
facilitates the work of many CoPs as a platform for information exchange, good practiceadvancement, problem solving and peer support. htps://ardc.edu.au/resources/communities-ofpractice/
Earth Science Information Partners [https://www.esipfed.org/] (ESIP) [https://www.esipfed.org/] is acommunity of data and information technology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology]
practitioners that come together to coordinate Earth science interoperability [https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Interoperability] efforts. ESIP enables and supports high quality virtual and in-person

collaborations amongst cross-domain data professionals on common data challenges andopportunities ( https://www.esipfed.org/get-involved/collaborate [https://www.esipfed.org/get-involved/
collaborate]).

Another important example is illustrated in the power of integrating statistical and geospatial
information for the production and dissemination of location relevant statistics. The integration
includes geocoding of statistics, spatial analysis, and creating statistical maps. Several
governmental bodies are responsible for supporting the integration of statistical and geospatial
information, and provide• As the coordinating body of Mexico’s National System of Statistical and Geographic Information(SNIEG), INEGI issues and provides the technical regulations for coordination and integration of73

statisticalandgeographicalinformation.

The

National

Geostatistical

Framework[https://en.www.inegi.org.mx/temas/mg/] of Mexico drives Mexico’s national housing inventory,
delineation of metropolitan areas and human settlements, school census data, and economic
units among other entities.
• Within Eurostat, the Geographical Information System of the Commission (GISCO) is for
improvement of the integration of statistical and geospatial information at the EU level. It seeks
to promote the use of geographical information and the GIS within the European Statistical
System

(ESS)

and

the

EU-Commission(see:https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco]).
Eurostat and Mexico along with many other nations are heavily involved as a CoP in the activities
of UN-GGIM, with focus on advancing a Global Statistical Geospatial Information Framework
document [http://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/9th-Session/documents/The_GSGF.pdf].
The technical documents and insight offered by these and other CoPs can be of great value toorganizations seeking to manage services that are interoperable within the organization and acrossorganizations from the local to international level.
Appendix

7[https://drive.google.com/file/d/14cmwQxcbrvTxxW1YspsbFOrM5R36zFnu/view?usp=sharing]summarizes some of the key CoPs represented in the OGC, ISO/TC 211 and IHO, along withreferences to various professional associations that can be an excellent resource for gaining
understanding of current and emerging community requirements for data sharing, exchanging
community implementation good practices and lessons learned, and in identifying new standards
needs and opportunities. In addition to a range of user-community oriented CoPs, the table also
includes CoPs that bring together expertise on key geospatial technology areas such as Sensors and
IoT, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. These communities offer additional opportunities
to learn about emerging standards-based technologies that may have benefit to an organization.

6. Achieving Outcomes
The purpose of this section is enabling the reader to:* Understand the importance of how standards will improve sharing and use of geospatial
information and optimize geospatial information management.
* Understand use cases to apply rapid mobilization of new sources of data and technologies andavoid lock-in to specific technology providers.
* Understand requirements for improved uptake of geospatial information across government andwith the private sector and citizens; and creating efficiencies in geospatial data production andlifecycle management, saving effort, time, and cost in reusing and repurposing data.
* Understand the benefit realization and compliance of standards with the development of
indicators to assess, monitor and evaluate as part of an internal/external auditing exercise.

Putting it all together
In a perfect world, reading this Guide once would result in a fully informed computer mapping
expert. However, the authors will be the first to inform the reader that the path over time is filledwith challenges, failures, and victories. Through an iterative process of discovery, and re-discovery,
geospatial experts learn, and re-learn, what it takes to achieve a successful outcome.
74

Implementations are often followed by re-imaginations of what works best in a given situation,
which often changes by the time everyone comes on board with their efforts and discover what
their role should be.
As a result, please consider that each situation is unique, and one must often scramble to make allof the pieces fit. Frustrating, yet normal and expected. Many of the pieces are included above, withthe expectation that many readers will be thinking that some aspects do not apply to their situation.
However, it is good to know what else is out there, so that one will know to go looking for it whenneeded, knowing that it exists to be found.
That said, the details of geospatial standards provide the most comprehensive knowledge guideline.
They define how everything actually works and fits together to function properly. If one knows how
a computer file is structured, or data delivered over a network, or an interface displayed, one canknow what to look for when it doesn’t function as expected. Many computer experts most often
find themselves asking why something doesn’t work, and marvel at their good fortune when it
does.
Three main aspects of positive outcomes are compliance, success indicators, and role models of
success.

Compliance
A system of compliance is encouraged to ensure that organizations are implementing the nationally(or internationally) endorsed standards that promote data sharing and use, and to verify thattechnology products and services acquired by government properly implement the required
standards. There are four aspects levels of standards compliance that should be considered:
1. Starting from the beginning, the goal is to achieve regular assessment and validation oforganizational compliance in implementing endorsed standards in geospatial information
management activities that align with agency, regional and national policy.
2. One main method is the inclusion of nationally endorsed geospatial information management
standards as a requirement for all organizational procurements/tenders delivering geospatial
technologies and data products and services, with a mandate or preference for delivery of
products and services that have been tested and certified as compliant (where such compliancetests are available) with the standard by the appropriate compliance authority.
3. Agency, regional and national policy should include the facilitation of testing and certification
functions which can provide formal certification nationally as well as certification recognition
under international testing and certification standards, frameworks, and conventions (seehttps://github.com/opengeospatial/cite/wiki [https://github.com/opengeospatial/cite/wiki]).
4. Use of available technology compliance testing resources to confirm proper implementation ofstandards related to any government developed technologies. SDOs ISO geospatial standards
include self-evaluation resources that can be useful. OGC offers freely accessible and offers online test procedures and manages certifications.
The OGC Compliance Interoperability Test Engine [http://cite.opengeospatial.org/teamengine/] and ISO
19105 test scripts are available as open source technology, and can be implemented by governmentorganizations for testing of internal government systems which use, or may have been modified to75use OGC and ISO standards.
The ISO 19105 standard specifies the framework, concepts and methodology for conformance
testing and criteria to be achieved to claim conformance to the family of applicable standards
documents regarding geographic information and relevant application domains. It provides aframework for specifying abstract test suites (ATS) composed of abstract test cases grouped inconformance classes and for defining the procedures to be followed during conformance testing.
ATS for each individual ISO/TC 211 standard is found in their respective Annex A. Conformance
may be claimed for data or software products or services or by specifications including any profile
or functional standard.
A Use case for using ISO 19105 and the Abstract test suites for is found \<an external link orreference to the appropriate annex/part of this Guide\>
IHO has a long history of supporting international testing frameworks for certification against
global standards supporting the SOLAS convention. These testing and compliance regimes are theresult of global harmonization efforts by many national agencies (see: Standards in Force | IHO[https://iho.int/en/standards-in-force])

Success Indicators
It is important to have a Benefits Realization Plan and establish success indicators to gauge whether
benefits have been realized. Success indicators typically set targets and define how the benefits will
be measured, and what evidence will be used as the basis. It is valuable to know when the objectiveof implementing standards has achieved overarching goal(s), such as enhanced interoperability
and data integration.
The benefits of implementing a common standards framework are achieved over time andreinforce the need for a national standards strategy for verifying that implementations had thedesired impact in reaching overarching goals and objectives. By implementing geospatial
information management systems based on a common, open, standards framework, technologicalbarriers to geospatial information sharing can be significantly minimized.
This allows the decision to share geospatial information among organizations from the local to
global level, to be one of policies; regarding open data, as well as data that should be restrictedfrom sharing due to clearly defined privacy or security policies. Without a common standards
framework, organizations risk creating technical barriers to data sharing and locking theirorganizations into a particular technology solution.
When data sharing becomes a requirement in such an environment, costly and time-consuming
custom software development is often required to solve data compatibility challenges – raisingsystem lifecycle costs, and more importantly, causing missed opportunities to share and cooperate
on urgent, time sensitive issues.
By adopting and implementing a common geospatial information management standards
framework across government and with other stakeholders, governments can better assure thatgeospatial information managed by different organizations can be discovered, accessed, andapplied to address a range of important issues. Organizations reduce their IT lifecycle costs andmake it easier to add new standards-based capabilities as they are offered by industry.

76

They also take advantage of the interoperability enabled by the variety of geospatial and IT
products and services available on the market that implement these standards, as well as casestudies from the user community that illustrate the benefits of adopting international geospatial
standards, such as those summarized in this Guide and Appendix 7 Other indicators may include
assessing, monitoring and evaluating as part of an internal/external auditing exercise, and may
include factors such as:• Improvements in geospatial data production and management efficiencies that save time andeffort.
• Improved ability to share geospatial information with ease under normal operational andurgent situations.
• Cost savings related to the reuse / repurposing of geospatial data.
Examples of Community good practices are provided in IGIF Appendix 6.7. See Interrelated Action
for a Benefits Realization Plan (SP3).

Standards Training, Tools and Related Resources
A range of training, references and tools are made freely available by the SDOs and otherorganizations committed to advancing efficient and effective geospatial information management.
A few examples are provided below. Readers are encouraged to refer to Appendix 8[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fr_qnz47EsDbHyaZatwdHS940QBm4b9nXT7erVg1-nk/edit?usp=sharing] fora detailed listing of training, tools and other resources.

Education / Training
The following are examples online and freely available education and training programs. Pleaserefer to Appendix 8 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P9KDa5sts9iH91GXA_lFs-Y2RmvsqACirevFA12460c/
edit?usp=sharing] for additional details on training.

• OGC eLearning modules to understand and implement standards, Understanding OGC
Standards—

OGC

e-Learning

2.0.0

documentation(opengeospatial.github.io)[http://opengeospatial.github.io/e-learning/ogc-standards/text/services-ogc.html]• European

INSPIRE

Training

Library:

https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/portfolio/training-library[https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/portfolio/training-library]• The ANZLIC Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) Metadata
Working Group has created a video: Metadata: What is it [https://sho.co/1C95Q]• There are a wide range of FAIR data training resources and courses offered on the internet andby various organizations worldwide. One such example is provided by the Australian Research
Data Commons [http://ardc.edu.au/resources/working-with-data/fair-data/fair-data-training/]:• ESIP provides a comprehensive set of training and tools. http://dmtclearinghouse.esipfed.org/[http://dmtclearinghouse.esipfed.org/]• Introductory AusPIX DGGS Video [https://locationindex.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/DGGS.mp4]• Metadata: What is it [https://sho.co/1C95Q]

77

Strategic Goals and Planning
IGIF SP1, Strategic Pathway 1 - Governance and Institutions, provides guidance on strategicplanning. Since standards are a fundamental aspect of achieving appropriate outcomes, it can be
useful to ensure that local strategic plans incorporate standards at the earliest stages. Examples ofStrategic Plans:
Examples of Strategic Plans:• UK Geospatial Commission: UK Geospatial Strategy [http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlocking-the-power-of-locationthe-uks-geospatial-strategy]• US NSDI Strategic Plan
• ISO defined 2030 as a milestone to reflect on our progress and evaluate our fundamental work
as an organization. This time frame aligns with the UN’s ambitious Global Agenda for 2030,
which, as outlined through the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, will require international
collaborative effort to become a reality. See: ISO Strategy 2030 [https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/
isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100364.pdf]• ANZLIC [https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100364.pdf] Strategy that aligns withand supports global and domestic initiatives. https://www.anzlic.gov.au/anzlic-council/anzlicstrategic-plan-2020-24 [https://www.anzlic.gov.au/anzlic-council/anzlic-strategic-plan-2020-24]• Global

Earth

Observation

Systemof

Systems(GEOSS)developedastrategicplan:

https://earthobservations.org/documents/open\_eo\_data/GEO\_Strategic\_Plan\_2016\_2025\_Impl
ementing\_GEOSS.pdf[https://earthobservations.org/documents/open\_eo\_data/

GEO\_Strategic\_Plan\_2016\_2025\_Implementing\_GEOSS.pdf]

Standards Baseline Surveys / Assessment• Developed by ICSM Metadata Working Group [https://www.icsm.gov.au/sites/default/files/2017-07/SIDAsurvey.pdf]• Appendix

2[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XuOW74eF_bjoQkLzx1w6IyQKMTs0CPMO/view?usp=sharing]:

Example of a simple metadata Survey to determine adoption of metadata• Standards

Inventory

Standards

andSpecifications|

IHO[https://iho.int/en/standards-and-specifications] (refer to Appendix 5 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RsKY_33lVmPKvoppq9BP-BSf0pOPIsZg/
view?usp=sharing])• Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis Reference IGIF SP6 Appendix 6.3 Table Needs Assessment
and Gap Analysis Template• Updating the Australian Geospatial Reference System (AGRS) and Associated Standards[http://drive.google.com/file/d/1Js3R-OHT_TSXDlzcBwKg3Dir3-1NEq1t/view?usp=sharing]• Call to Action for Global Access to and Harmonization of Quality Information of Individual
Earth Science Datasets [https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-019]• International Community Guidelines for Sharing and Reusing Quality Information of Individual
Earth Science Datasets [https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xsu4p]

78

A Standards Governance Framework• Foundation Spatial Data Framework is a change program on Australia’s "common asset" oflocation information. Foundation Spatial Data Framework | ANZLIC [https://www.anzlic.gov.au/resources/foundation-spatial-data-framework].

• OGC(https://www.ogc.org/[https://www.ogc.org/])

and

W3C

(https://www.w3.org/[

https://www.w3.org/]) are good examples for standards governance framework.

Action Plans including Institutional Arrangements
The INSPIRE Directive and its implementation across Europe can be seen as a major use case forgeospatial standards. Many of these standards are directly or indirectly referenced to, either in the
Directive or its supporting documents and guidelines. The message is geospatial standards support
legislation, which support fundamental data (such as INSPIRE data themes), and eventually support
SDGs.
• INSPIRE | Welcome to INSPIRE (europa.eu) [https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/]• Implementation and Communication of Standards Understanding OGC Standards — OGC eLearning 2.0.0 documentation (opengeospatial.github.io) [http://opengeospatial.github.io/e-learning/ogc-standards/text/services-ogc.html], Metadata: What is it [https://sho.co/1C95Q]• Standards CoP https://iho.int/en/standards-in-force [https://iho.int/en/standards-in-force]• Standards Capacity Building Programs
Current Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) enable existing and emerging industries to use
real-time precise positioning data, allowing them to improve productivity, efficiency, safety anddecision making. Standards play a crucial role when combining GNSS and geodetic data with datafrom other domains.
https://frontiersi.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/P1003-Geodetic-Standards—Final-Report.pdf[https://frontiersi.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/P1003-Geodetic-Standards-Final-Report.pdf]

79Figure 6.1 INSPIRE – A European legislative Directive with technical specifications encouraging the use ofopen standards

Success Indicators for Benefits Realization
What are the indicators for success from which tangle benefits can be assessed? Provided below
are case standards implementation case studies showing ROI, cost savings, and new efficiencies
benefitting one or more organizations.
• The OGC WaterML 2.0 standard, was developed in a working group organized jointly between
OGC and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). WaterML was implemented to moreeasily integrate a multitude of hydrologic surface and groundwater observations to improve
local to global water resource monitoring. See: Swimming in Data: OGC’s WaterML 2.0 Quenches
New Zealand’s Thirst for Information Integration | OGC [https://www.ogc.org/blog/3285]• A Land Information New Zealand Bathymetry Investigation [http://www.linz.govt.nz/system/
files_force/media/pages-attachments/New%20Zealand%20Bathymetry%20Investigation%20October%202015.pdf?
download=1] identified open standards such as metadata and IHO standards as a means of

reducing duplication of collection, and to minimize associated outlay of operational funding.
• Within the framework of Mexico’s statistical and geographical information system, based ongood international practices in standardization, INEGI provides the Technical Regulations for
coordination

andguidanceonstatisticalandgeographicalhttps://www.snieg.mx/DocumentacionPortal/Normatividad/vigente/nt\_ng\_frs\_feg.pdf[https://www.snieg.mx/DocumentacionPortal/Normatividad/vigente/nt_ng_frs_feg.pdf].

80

matters.

Acknowledgements:
The UN-GGIM Secretariat would like to thank the following Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC),
International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 211 (ISO/TC 211) andInternational Hydrographic Organization (IHO) representatives and staff for their significant
investment time, energy and expertise in revising the UN-GGIM Guide to the Role of Geospatial
Information Standards. Edition 3 of this important document, now a global on-line resource,
incorporates recent important geospatial standards work, and aligns the Standards Guide to theUnited Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework.
Name

Organization

SDO Affiliation(s)Quassim Abdullah

Woolpert Inc.

USA

OGC

Yong Baek

International

MonacoIHOHydrographic
Organization (IHO)
Irina Bastrakova

Geoscience Australia

Australia

OGC, ISO/TC 211

Peter Baumann

rasdaman GmbHGermany

OGC, ISO/TC 211

Greg Buehler

Open Geospatial

USA

OGC

Norway

OGC, ISO/TC 211

Consortium (OGC)
Morten Borrebaek

Norwegian Mapping
AgencyKarel Charvat

Plan4allCzech Republic

OGC

Serena Coetzee

University of Pretoria

South Africa

ISO/TC 211

Shane Crossman

Geoscience Australia

Australia

OGC

Agneta Engberg

International

SwedenISO/TC 211

Organization forStandardization TC 211
Simon Green

Ordnance Survey

United Kingdom

OGC

Joel Haasdyk

NSW Department ofAustralia

OGC

Danish Geodata Agency Denmark

IHO

Norwegian Mapping

IHO

Customer Service
Jens Peter Weiss
HartmannGerhard Heggebo

NorwayAgencyJan Hjelmager

Agency for Data Supply Denmark

ISO/TC 211, OGC

and Efficiency
SangKi Hong

Anyang University

South Korea

OGC, ISO/TC 211

France

OGC(Korea)Emmanuel Mondon

AdviceGeo

81

Pearlyn Pang

Maritime and Port

Singapore

IHO, OGC

Authority of Singapore(MPA)
Peter Parslow

Ordnance Survey

United Kingdom

OGC, ISO/TC 211

Rollin Phillips

Open Geospatial

USA

OGC

United Kingdom

OGC

Japan

ISO/TC 211, OGC

USA

OGC

Consortium
Jonathan Pritchard

IIC Technologies
LimitedReese Plews

International
Cartographic
Association (ICA)Mark Reichardt

Open Geospatial
Consortium

Jill Saligoe-Simmel

Esri

USA

OGC

Tobias Spears

Fisheries and Oceans

CanadaISO/TC 211, OGC

USA

OGC, ISO/TC 211

CanadaDavid Stolarz

American Society for
Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing(ASPRS)

Erik Stubkjaer

Aalborg University

Denmark

OGC

Ronald Tse

Ribose Limited

United Kingdom

OGC, ISO/TC 211

Patrick Vorster

National Geospatial

South Africa

ISO/TC 211

Netherlands

IHO, OGC

Information
Ellen Vos

Netherlands
Hydrographic Service82[1] UN GGIM Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF) - Strategic Pathway 6 (SP6), http://ggim.un.org/IGIF/part2.cshtml[2] What is Interoperability? https://www.himss.org/resources/interoperability-healthcare[3] http://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101300[4] adapted from https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/ss/product-standards[5] Open does not necessarily imply free of cost. Depending on a SDO’s business model, costs of developing standards arerecovered from membership fees or sales.
[6] Specifications may be industry or community developed. Industry-driven specifications typically start as closed or proprietary
based on their intellectual property value and a company’s investment in research and development. Some owners of closed
specifications make open libraries available for others to read and right, providing a level of openness. As specifications mature,some are released through open licenses to the community as open specifications. Some International and Community standards
begin as industry developed open specifications and de facto standards.
[7] A Community standard is an official position of the OGC endorsing a specification or standard developed external to the OGC
and is considered a normative standard by OGC membership and part of the OGC Standards Baseline. Examples of open
specifications that have achieved OGC Community Standard status include the OGC 3D Tiles Specification and OGC Indexed 3d
Scene Layer (I3S) and Scene Layer Package Format Specification. https://www.ogc.org/standards/community[8] Examples of endorsed Good Practices include the Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) Comm/TIFF Profile
for Imagery & Gridded Data 2.3.1 (OGC Best Practices https://www.ogc.org/docs/bp ) and INSPIRE Good Practice: SDMX for Human
Health and Population Distribution (INSPIRE Good Practices https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/portfolio/good-practice-library )[9] De facto standards can be endorsed as international standards over time, for example, HTML, PDF, and GeoJSON have followed
this route https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/de-facto-standard and https://www.ogc.org/blog/2543
[10]

See

DIN,

“"Economic

BenefitsofStandardization,"

2010,

at

http://www.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/2896/

DIN_GNN_2011_engl_akt_neu.pdf[11] See Craglia M. (Ed.), “The Socio-Economic Impact of the Spatial Data Infrastructure of Catalonia,” 2008, at
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/7696
[12]

NASA

Geospatial

Interoperability

Returnon

Investment

Study(2005)

http://www.ec-

gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/reference/ROI_Study.pdf[13] New Zealand http://www.linz.govt.nz/geospatial-office/about/projects-and-news/productivityreport[14] A profile may be a locally recommended subset of a standard and/or locally relevant domain lists to be used with a particular
standard, such as a list of metadata keywords.
[15] The reference model for geographic information standardization (ISO 19101-1, Geographic information — Reference
model — Part 1: Fundamentals, also available as the OGC Abstract Specification)[16] ISO 19101-1:2014, Geographic information — Reference model — Part 1: Fundamentals[17] UN GGIM Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF) - Strategic Pathway 6 (SP6)[18] For examples of ‘Foundation’ see ANZLIC Australian and New Zealand Foundation Spatial Data Framework
http://www.anzlic.gov.au/foundation_spatial_data_framework. For examples of ‘Framework’ - See US Federal Geographic Data
Committee Framework, https://www.fgdc.gov/framework/handbook/overview[19] Refer to ISO Standard “19110:2016 Geographic information — Methodology for feature cataloguing” for more information[20] See also ISO Standard “ISO 25964-1 Information and documentation - Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies”.
In particular, ISO 25964-2 describes the W3C recommendation SKOS, the Simple Knowledge Organization System.
[21] More information can be found online at the Data Interoperability Standards Consortium http://datainteroperability.org/[22] www.ogc.org/roadmap[23] Further, MQTT [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQTT] is becoming increasingly popular in the IoT universe.
[24] https://www.ogc.org/standards/community[25] See http://www.onegeology.org/technical_progress/technical.html

83