- From: Peter Parslow via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:34:26 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
As far as I know, LandInfra / InfraGML was the first (& so far only) OGC standard to have taken the approach which CityGML 3.0 is now trying. And it's true that creating the GML encoding required approving a corrigendum (or minor amendment) to the conceptual model. I will share ISO TC211's relevant experience here, as they have longer experience of agreeing conceptual / logical models and then generating encodings. TC211 now 'insists' that any project which creates / modifies UML models has a member of their 'Harmonised Model Management Group' (HMMG) involved - whose jobs it is to check that the model is 'good enough' to act as a source model in a model driven architecture for producing various encodings. And the TC won't (shouldn't) put the conceptual standard out for full vote until HMMG is happy with the model. The HMMG is now part of a 'Resource Management Group' involving also TC211's leads for XML encodings & ontologies (they haven't created a JSON encoding yet - first such project out for 'new project' vote at present). Here the idea is that in approving the model, HMMG has taken into account the capability of driving automatic XML and OWL encodings from it - so has tried at least a subset. (opinions differ on the quality of the rule drive encodings, especially the OWL, but that's a different matter!) That may well be a rigour which CityGML should be encouraged to adopt (& then OGC TC) - before the conceptual model standard is approved (or perhaps even before it goes for 'public vote'), the model must have been tested by creating an encoding. -- GitHub Notification of comment by PeterParslow Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1069#issuecomment-412045063 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 August 2018 10:34:29 UTC