Please post your suggestions and recommendations for this addendum.

- Additional FACCs

- Allication of Attributes to Dataset Components

Hi,

I'd like to make the following comments about the "Additional FACCs" section:

I note that only a subset of each referenced geometics standard has been brought into CDB. What governed the selection of these additional Features Codes? I was assuming these codes represent concepts not previously covered by FACC (which would make sense, creating a single integrated set) but there are a few cases of repeated concepts in both sets (eg tunnel, sand, vegetation) or of directly analogous ones (eg rock/stone). Are these just oversights?

Some of the new DGIWG FDD Dec 08 Feature Codes have been nicely integrated into the existing FACC schema hierarchy, but others appear to have been simply grouped together under entirely new categories. The new categories are undefined and appear to simply reflect the codes’ origins (U, V and W for ISO/IEC 18025:2005 and Z for the remaining DGIWG FDD Dec 08). At least some of the codes under these new categories represent concepts related to existing ones (eg “Dock” is put under UV rather than under BB with such concepts as “Berth” and “Drydock”). There are also some strange allocations within these new categories (eg UD001 is a Haystack and UD002 (which you'd expect to be another haystack-like thing) is a Mixed_Urban_Region). Shouldn’t all new codes be integrated consistently into the FACC hierarchy?

ISO/IEC 18025:2005 definitions reference terms that are defined elsewhere in that standard by putting them in capital letters in the definition text. This capitalisation has been left in the new CDB codes’ definitions, even though CDB does not use the same convention elsewhere and even when the referenced codes have not been added as part of the new CDB codes. Shouldn’t this capitalisation be removed?

Thanks.

Hi Richard,

Here are answers to your questions.

QUESTION: I note that only a subset of each referenced geometics standard has been brought into CDB. What governed the selection of these additional Features Codes? I was assuming these codes represent concepts not previously covered by FACC (which would make sense, creating a single integrated set) but there are a few cases of repeated concepts in both sets (eg tunnel, sand,

vegetation) or of directly analogous ones (eg rock/stone). Are these just oversights?

ANSWER: CDB 3.1 is an integration of DIGEST 2.1, DGIWG FDD (Dec 2008) and ISO/IEC 18025:2005. Here are the rules we used for the integration of these three sets...

A) DGIWG FDD superseeds DIGEST FACC. In CDB 3.1, we adopted the same approach. In other words, all of the V3.0 CDB Feature codes were updated to reflect the work done by DGIWG. Specifically...

1) in the case where the meaning of the Feature was changed in DGIWG FDD, CDB 3.1 has also reflected that change.

2) in the case where DGIWG FDD added a Feature, CDB 3.1 has also added that Feature

3) in the case where DGIWG FDD deleted a Feature, CDB 3.1 has deprecated that Feature

B) We reviewed all of the Environmental codes for ISO/IEC 18025:2005. Here's how we proceeded...

1) We eliminated all those ISO/IEC 18025 codes that appeared to match perfectly with the DGIWG FDD 2008 and DIGEST 2.1, i.e. where the feature name was the same and the feature definition appeared to be equivalent. Note that we used the more up-to-date concept definition text in CDB 2.1.

2) We eliminated all of the codes that conflict with the scope/mandate of the CDB. This includes codes having to do with Space and Time-varying concepts. So for example all of the SEDRIS Environmental Codes based on the following primary groups were not considered for inclusion in CDB 3.1. Here are a few examples of such Primary Groups...

i) Acoustic_Phenomenon

ii) Algorithm_Related

iii) Animal

iv) Atmosphere

v) Em_Phenomenon

vi) Waterbody_State

vii) ...

3)All of the Environmental Codes that survived steps B.1) and B.2) were added to CDB 3.1. Since ISO/IEC 18025:2005 does not use the CDB FACC coding nomenclature, we had to provide a FACC-equivalent coding nomenclature to the ISO Features so that we could integrate into the CDB schema. To this end, we used the unused series Uxxxx, Vxxxx, Wxxxx of FACC codes in order to integrate in the CDB schema.

QUESTION: Some of the new DGIWG FDD Dec 08 Feature Codes have been nicely integrated into the existing FACC schema hierarchy, but others appear to have been simply grouped together under entirely new categories. The new categories are undefined and appear to simply reflect the codes' origins (U, V and W for ISO/IEC 18025:2005 and Z for the remaining DGIWG FDD Dec 08). At least some of the codes under these new categories represent concepts related to existing ones (eg "Dock" is put under UV rather than under BB with such concepts as "Berth" and "Drydock").

ANSWER: See part B of previous answer. Note that there are cases where the concept definitions for similarly named features are different under DIGWG FDD and ISO/IEC 18025:2005. Unless we could find a perfect match between the two, the ISO/IEC Environmental Code was added to the Uxxxx, Vxxxx, Wxxxx of the extended CDB 3.1 feature code dictionary. We believe that it would be unwise to eliminate seamingly overlapping codes until the ISO/IEC Environmental Code Dictionary and DGIWG Feature Code Dictionary are re-conciled with each other by their respective committees. As you rightly point out, there is an overlap for the "Dock" Feature. In DGIWG FDD, Dock is defined as "An artificially enclosed body of water within which vessels may moor and which may have gates used to regulate the interior water level.". In ISO 18025, Dock is defined as "The space between two PIERs; a dock or a slip.". Since the definitions are rather different, we have chosen to retain both, the first as CDB code BB095-000 and the second as CDB code UV001-000.

QUESTION: There are also some strange allocations within these new categories (eg UD001 is a Haystack and UD002 (which you'd expect to be another haystack-like thing) is a Mixed_Urban_Region). Shouldn't all new codes be integrated consistently into the FACC hierarchy?

ANSWER: ISO/IEC Environmental Coding does not organize the features into a hierarchy as does DIGEST FACC and CDB. As a result, we used the next closest grouping possible provided by ISO, namely the Primary Group. Under ISO, there are six Environmental Codes that have a "Agriculture" Primary Group. Four of this are represented with the pre-existing DIGEST FACC codes. The remaining two, are "Haystack" and Mixed_Urban_Region" which were added to the Udxxx series of CDB codes in v3.1.

QUESTION: ISO/IEC 18025:2005 definitions reference terms that are defined elsewhere in that standard by putting them in capital letters in the definition text.

This capitalisation has been left in the new CDB codes' definitions, even though CDB does not use the same convention elsewhere and even when the referenced codes have not been added as part of the new CDB codes.

Shouldn't this capitalisation be removed?

ANSWER: The capitalization conventions for the labels of environmental codes in CDB v3.1 is consistent with those of CDB v3.1.

FINAL NOTE: As part of upcoming releases, Presagis will offer a utility that will map remap DIGEST 2.1, DGIWG FDD and ISO/IEC 18025 features to CDB coding.

Hi David,

Thanks for your helpful response that answers a lot of my questions. It’s helpful to understand the rationale behind the decisions made. (Perhaps more of this sort of material could be included in the draft documents when defining future changes?)

...

3)All of the Environmental Codes that survived steps B.1) and B.2) were added to CDB 3.1. Since ISO/IEC 18025:2005 does not use the CDB FACC coding nomenclature, we had to provide a FACC-equivalent coding nomenclature to the ISO Features so that we could integrate into the CDB schema. To this end, we used the unused series Uxxxx, Vxxxx, Wxxxx of FACC codes in order to integrate in the CDB schema.

I'm still a bit confused over why the EDCS codes have been divided into three new primary categories, instead of one. Is there any difference between them? What are their definitions (and, indeed, those of the secondary categories used)? Please could these be included in the standard?

Also I'm still unclear on why the EDCS codes could not be more fully integrated, eg couldn't the EDCS Dock have been put under BB with the “other” Dock, rather than use a whole new UV code? Is this to avoid potential clashes with future FDD code definitions?

...

ANSWER: The capitalization conventions for the labels of environmental codes in CDB v3.1 is consistent with those of CDB v3.1.

I’m not sure I understand your answer (presumably a typo). Do you mean that the intention was to maintain exactly the same descriptive text as is used in the coding standard from which the code was derived?

...

FINAL NOTE: As part of upcoming releases, Presagis will offer a utility that will map remap DIGEST 2.1, DGIWG FDD and ISO/IEC 18025 features to CDB coding.

This would be very useful. Will this be a free utility, (since it is definitive and effectively an adjunct to the standard) or only available on the same terms as the API or even as part of the API?

Final thought: I assume the final specification will include full references for ISO/IEC 18025:2005 and DGIWG FDD Dec 08. Since most people would know them by their more familiar names (eg EDCS), it would have been useful to have such references in the draft too.

Thanks.

This is great..Thanks for discussion...Really cool..

[URL=http://dossierdesurendettement.net/rachat-de-credit-surendettement]Rachat de credit surendettement[/URL]