[Requests] LandInfra: comments on 15-111 OGC Land and Infrastructure Conceptual Model

Reini Jari (MML) jari.reini at nls.fi
Wed Mar 2 03:35:12 EST 2016


PART A

1. Evaluator:
Tarja Myllymäki, National Land Survey of Finland, tarja.myllymaki at nls.fi<mailto:tarja.myllymaki at nls.fi>
Jari Reini, National Land Survey of Finland, jari.reini at nls.fi<mailto:jari.reini at nls.fi>


2. Submission:
15-111 OGC Land and Infrastructure Conceptual Model


PART B

1. Requirement: [General, #]

General

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

Whole document

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Excellent

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: In LADM Spatial unit covers land and/or water. In INSPIRE "Cadastral parcel should be considered as a single area of Earth surface (land and/or water). So, water included.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

General

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

Whole document

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: There are quite a lot of modelling done for the legal objects, cadastral division etc., is this all really needed in this model, landinfra context? There are some excellent parts in the modelling (compared to LADM and INSPIRE) but despite that, this is a competing model. The use case should be more visible. Maybe attribute naming etc. should be different than in real legal models. Otherwise the data producers might be afraid of implementing model which doesn't cover all legal aspects and details needed when transferring data.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

1. Scope, p. 16

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Question

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "This standard includes division of land based on administrative (jurisdictions and districts)". Can you mention the use case more precisely, so for data transferring?



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

4.8.1 administrative division, p. 39

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "Admistrative division Compares to ISO 19152:2012 LA_SpatialUnitGroup". Actually there is no comparison for administrative division if divisions have any other attributes than geometry attributes. Usually there are attributes and therefore division consists of BAUnits, not SpatialUnits. How about the INSPIRE model?



1. Requirement: [General, #]
2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

4.8.7 easement, p. 40

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "Easement Compares to ISO 19152:2012 4.1.19 restriction". Should be BAUnit. Easement should be in LADM LA_BAUnit, equal to PropertyUnit. See FIG article of month April 2011 (in text right-of-use unit, eg. easement, which can be modelled as LA_BAUnit: "4.2.1 The right-of-use unit as an object fits the LADM basic administrative unit."). See also definition for basic administrative unit, paragraph example, in LADM document. See also landinfra document figure 62: Property unit and Easement are in the same level



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.1 Property Unit, p. 192

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "area of land" -> area of land and/or water.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.1 Property Unit, p. 192

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Excellent

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "as automation requests a machine-readable identification of all lots". Same opinion. This is unfortunately not the case in INSPIRE cadastral parcels (multipolygon).



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.1 Property Unit, attribute ownership, p. 192

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Question

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: Is this modelling really enough to describe ownership? Are there any needs for date stamps? Owner may also be missing.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.1 Property Unit, attribute postAddress, p. 192

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: Property unit can have several addresses.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.3 LandParcel, 2. paragraph, p. 193

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "SpatialRepresentation (though SpatialUnit would be a better choice for this) ". Should be this choice.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.3 LandParcel, attribute parcelArea, p. 193

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: Area can be calculated, official etc. What is the coordinate reference system for this attribute? This is a difficult/dangerous attribute in the context of legal object. Should be at least optional.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

7.10.2.3 LandParcel, attributes currentLandUse and attribute plannedLandUse, p. 193

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Minor

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: How to manage these attributes as they might be not equal to the parcel? Land use (and PlannedLandUse) should be a separate theme and layer. Or if this is for data transfer, should be described in definition, eg. result of overlay.



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

Annex D.2 LADM, table 4,  p. 270

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Major

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "7.10.2.5 Easement" is now "LA_Restriction" in LADM. Easement should be in LADM LA_BAUnit, equal to PropertyUnit. See FIG article of month April 2011 (in text right-of-use unit, eg. easement, which can be modelled as LA_BAUnit: "4.2.1 The right-of-use unit as an object fits the LADM basic administrative unit."). See also definition for basic administrative unit, paragraph example, in LADM document. See also landinfra document figure 62: Property unit and Easement are in the same level



1. Requirement: [General, #]

2. Implementation Specification Section number: [General, #]

Annex D.2.3 Spatial units and 4 Surveying and spatial representations, p. 270

3. Criticality: [Major, Minor, Editorial, etc.]

Excellent

4. Comments/justifications for changes: [Comments]

Comment: "In LandInfra, the geometrical shape of spatial units is modelled independently from the legal status of these units." Same opinion.



Jari REINI
Director, SDI Services
Finnish Geospatial Research Institute FGI
National Land Survey of Finland
Opastinsilta 12 C, FI-00521, Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: jari.reini at nls.fi<mailto:jari.reini at nls.fi> | Phone: +358 40 167 8649 | VoIP: sip:jari.reini at nls.fi<mailto:sip:jari.reini at nls.fi>
WGS84: 60.199 24.936 | Map: http://tinyurl.com/nlsfinland

[http://www.fgi.fi/fgi/sites/all/themes/fgi_omega/fgi_en_155x50px.gif]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160302/3fab585f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4944 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160302/3fab585f/attachment-0001.gif>


More information about the Requests mailing list