[Requests] Comments on CityGML 1.1 Candidate Specification

Lukáš Herman 222752 at mail.muni.cz
Mon Sep 12 03:03:12 EDT 2011


PART A

1. Evaluator:
        Lukas Herman
        Geographical departement
        Faculty of Science, Masaryk university
        Kotlarska 2, Brno, 611 37
        Czech republic
        e-mail: 222752 at mail.muni.cz

2. Submission: 
OGC 08-007r2
OpenGIS® City Geography Markup Language (CityGML) Encoding Standard


PART B

1.1 Requirement:
Where are code lists (class, function, usage) for TunnelInstallation, HollowSpace, TunnelFurniture and IntTunnelInstallation?

1.2 Implementation Specification Section number: 10.4.7 and C.2

1.3 Criticality: Normal

1.4 Comments/justifications for changes: Add this code lists in section C.2 or correct text in section 10.4.7.


2.1 Requirement:
Code lists (class, function, usage) for BridgeConstructionElement, BridgeInstallation, BridgeRoom, BridgeFurniture and IntBridgeInstallation are missing.

2.2 Implementation Specification Section number: 10.5.7 and C.3

2.3 Criticality: Normal

2.4 Comments/justifications for changes: : Add this code lists in section C.3 or correct text in section 10.5.7.


3.1 Requirement:
I think, that code list of _AbstractTunnel functions is a little bit poor. In my oppinion shall be there more categories, at least "pedestrian" tunnel (underpass), "mixed use" or "other function". 

3.2 Implementation Specification Section number: C.3 (Tab.: code list of the _AbstractTunnel attributes function and usage, p.226)

3.3 Criticality: Normal or minor

3.4 Comments/justifications for changes: Extend this code list.


4.1 Requirement:
In my oppinion should be in code list of _AbstractBridge function's added more categories ("mixed use", "other function"). 

4.2 Implementation Specification Section number: C.2 (Tab.: code list of the _AbstractBridge attributes function and usage, p.227)

4.3 Criticality: Normal or minor

4.4 Comments/justifications for changes: Extend this code list.


5.1 Requirement:
In code lists of the TransportationComplex attributes function and usage are duplications. Two numbers (1050, 1060) have same attribute value (main through-road). Same issue are numbers 1290 and 1300 (attribute value dead-end road).

5.2 Implementation Specification Section number: C.8 (Tab.: code list of the TransportationComplex attributes function and usage, p.234)

5.3 Criticality: Minor

5.4 Comments/justifications for changes: Correct this code list. Same situation was in 1.0.0 version of CityGML specification. So I don't know, if it is erorr or not, but in my oppinion it is useless to have two numbers for one atributte value.


6.1 Requirement:
Why is footprint (in LODO) used only in building class? I think, that is possible to have only 2D information abou tunnel or bridge, too.
So it may be suitable to use 2D footprint concept in this classes.

6.2 Implementation Specification Section number: 10.4 and 10.5

6.3 Criticality: Minor

6.4 Comments/justifications for changes: 
Adopt lod0FootPrint feature role from Building module. Add this relation between gml::MultiSurface and _AbstractTunnel/_AbstractBridge class. Related text and tables should be then modified too.


More information about the Requests mailing list