[Requests] RFP_Comment_OGC 10-126r2.txt

Dornblut at bafg.de Dornblut at bafg.de
Mon Jan 30 07:53:26 EST 2012


RFP_Comment_OGC 10-126r2.txt



PART A


1. Evaluator: Irina Dornblut (e-mail: dornblutatbafg.de) ; Sven
Tschirner (e-mail: tschirneratbafg.de)
      

2. Submission: OGC WaterML 2.0: part 1 - Time Series Encoding Standard
(10-126r2)  



PART B


1. Requirement: General

2. Implementation Specification Section number: 10.1	Scope of XML
implementation

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes:

- the Candidate Standard does not yet target the XML implementation of
the domain range style of timeseries, only time-value-pairs style. 

- the outcome of this restriction is that most generated sensor data can
only be published via SOS-services with huge overhead. 
- a lightweighted format (i.e. domain range style) is absolutely
necessary for sensor data captured automatically by gauges and stored in
huge data repositories. 
- postponing the XML encoding of domain range style would mostly
restrict the future use for manually captured data or sparse
automatically observations. 

- so the step from theory to implementation should be done for both
styles before marking WaterML2 as a stable standard, accepted in the
community for which it is intended. 


*************


1. Requirement: general, specification's name 

2. Implementation Specification Section number: title

3. Criticality: minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- "WaterML2" is the name reflecting the history of the development from
a national standard (i.e. WaterML of CUAHSI) to an OGC candidate
standard 
reconciling the developements in the OGC, namely O&M. 
- it is not really the version 2.0 of an existing OGC standard named
"WaterML", as impressed by th continuing counting.
- in fact, this is the version 1.0 of a new standard named "WaterML2",
becuase there is no OGC standard so far in this regard. 

- the specification's name should be re-named into "WaterML2, Version
1.0"


*************


1. Requirement: 1, reference to sampledFeature 

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.18	Requirements
class: Monitoring Points (p 57)

3. Criticality: minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

in 9.18 "This standard does not define the domain features specific to
hydrology but it does allow for the relationship between the sampling
feature 
(site, station, location) and the domain feature to be expressed."

- this relationship "sampledFeature" is inherited from
SF_SamplingFeature. 

- the mention of this inheritance would be helpful. 


**************


1. Requirement: 2, association to "owner" not displayed in the diagram

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.18	Requirements
class: Monitoring Points (figure 30 )

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- in 9.18.6 a property "owner" is described, but not displayed in figure
30. 

- an explanatory note or adaptation of the figure is required


***************


1. Requirement: 3, "gaugeDatum" of monitoring point

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.18	Requirements
class: Monitoring Points 

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- in 9.18.9 a "gaugeDatum" is defined as "elevation that is used as the
zero point, or datum, for stage measurements." 

this definition is ambiguous. by definition is:
- gauge height syn. stage syn. water level: Height of a water surface
above a gauge datum. (In: WMO Glossary of Hydrology, 0529) 
- gauge datum: Vertical distance of the zero of a gauge referred to a
certain datum level. (In: WMO Glossary of Hydrology, 0528) 
- gauge zero: Elevation at which a water level gauge zero is set. (In:
WMO Glossary of Hydrology, 0530) 

- in principle, two types of information are needed here: 
1) gauge zero level, i.e. gauge datum (e.g. 120 m+NN) 
2) vertical datum (national or regional) to which the (local) gauge
datum refers (e.g. Amsterdam Ordnance Datum)

- does CD_VerticalDatum reference to the datum level to which gauge
zero/gauge datum refers ?
- a note explaining the difference to datum level would be helpful,
something like "not to be confused  with ..."


***************


1. Requirement: 4, attribute "daylightSavingsTimeZone"  not displayed in
the diagram

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.18	Requirements
class: Monitoring Points (figure 30 )

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- in 9.18.5 a property "daylightSavingsTimeZone" of "TimeZone" class is
mentioned, but not displayed in figure 30. 

- an adaption of the figure is required


***************


1. Requirement: 5, correct typo 

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.19	Requirements
class: Monitoring Point feature of interest

3. Criticality: editorial

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- in P60L2: replace ", ... monitoring on the edge or a river, ..." with
", ... monitoring on the edge of a river, ..."


***************


1. Requirement: 6, attribute "aggregationPeriod" not described in text

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.21	Requirements
class: Observation process (figure 32)

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- figure 32 contains a property "aggregationPeriod", which is not
described in the text. 

- a description of "aggregationPeriod" in the text is required


***************

1. Requirement: 7, "gaugeDatum" of process

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.21	Requirements
class: Observation process (figure 32)

3. Criticality: minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- a note explaining the difference to gauge zero would be helpful,
something like "not to be confused  with ..."

- see also comment in requirement 3, "gaugeDatum" of monitoring point


***************

1. Requirement: 8, attributes "communityExtension" and
"internalExtension" not described in text

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.22	Requirements
class: Collection (figure 33)

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- figure 33 contains a properties "communityExtension" and
"internalExtension", which are not described in the text where
"extension" is described in 9.22.6. 

- harmonisation of text and figure is required


***************


1. Requirement: 9, property "sourceDefinition" not displayed in the
diagram

2. Implementation Specification Section number:  9.22	Requirements
class: Collection (figure 33)

3. Criticality: major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: 

- in 9.22.2 a property "sourceDefintion" is described, but not displayed
in figure 33. 

- an adaptation of the figure is required


***************






Kind regards,
Irina Dornblut
GRDC 

******************************
Irina Dornblut
Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC)
in the Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)
P.O. Box 20 02 53, D-56002 Koblenz, Germany
Am Mainzer Tor 1,  D-56068 Koblenz, Germany
phone: +49 261 1306-5265
fax:   +49 261 1306-5722
email      dornblut at bafg.de, grdc at bafg.de 
web        http://grdc.bafg.de 

____________________________________________
GRDC operates under the auspices of the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) with the support of the Federal Republic of Germany
within the Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)


More information about the Requests mailing list