GeoPackage SWG Overview

®
Sponsored by
GeoPackage Standards Working Group
98th OGC Technical Committee
Washington, DC USA
08 March 2016
Copyright © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium

OGC
®
Agenda
• Introductions – JY (10 minutes)
• GeoPackage 1.1 – JY (30 minutes)
• GeoPackage Elevation Extension Interoperability
Experiment – Carl Reed (20 minutes)
• NSG Profile – Roy Rathbun (15 minutes)
• GeoPackage Compliance – Matt Sorenson (10
minutes)
• Future Considerations – JY (10 minutes)
• Implications for an OGC GeoPackage Symbology
Encoding Standard (Discussion Paper) – JY (10
minutes)

OGC
®
Introductions and Roll Call
• Jeff Yutzler, Image Matters LLC (chair)
• Thomas Nierynck, Luciad (vice chair)

OGC
®
Patent Call
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY of the Open Geospatial
Consortium, Inc. as approved on 19 December 2008
Please be aware that this meeting is being held under the Intellectual Property
Rights Policy adopted by OGC. If you do not have a copy of this policy, please
see me (the meeting Chair) during this meeting. You may also view and
download a copy of that policy at:
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=32268
At this time, I would ask that anyone in attendance inform me if they are
personally aware of any claims under any patent applications or issued patents
that would be likely to be infringed by an implementation of the standard or other
work product which is the subject of this meeting. You need not be the inventor of
such patent or patent application in order to inform us of its existence, nor will you
be held responsible for expressing a belief that turns out to be inaccurate.

OGC
®
Tile Pyramids
24 zoom levels
GeoPackage:
Raster Maps, Images and Feature Data in One File
Raster Maps:
Small – Large Scale
Imagery
Low – High Resolution
Single File Sqlite Database
containing all data for direct-use on mobile platforms & handheld devices
Feature
Data

OGC
®
What is GeoPackage
• Open format for geospatial information
– Vector geospatial features
– Raster tile matrix sets (pyramids) of imagery and raster
maps at various scales
– Extensions
• SQLite database schema
– Table definitions
– Integrity assertions
– Format limitations
– Content constraints

OGC
®
geopackage.org
• Go here first!
• Web version of specification
• News, implementations, sample data, and FAQ
• Hyperlinks for participants (quickest way to portal,
Wiki, etc.)

OGC
®
GitHub Hosting
• https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage
• We’re the first SWG to do as much as possible on GitHub
– Encourages public input
– Provides more modern tools
– Portal, Wiki, and email list still used to conduct SWG business and
to protect participants’ intellectual property
• Issue Tracker
– https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/issues
• http://geopackage.org hosted by GH Pages
– Suggestions welcome
– Pull requests too! See the gh-pages branch.

OGC
®
Vector Tables
• Similar to other relational databases
• Built on existing standards
– OGC Simple Features
– Well-known Binary (WKB)
• Not subject to many of Shapefile’s limitations

OGC
®
Raster Tile Matrix Sets (Pyramids)
Raster Basemaps and Imagery available online from raster
tile servers (WMS, WMTS) and offline in GeoPackages
Raster Maps:
Small – Large Scale
Imagery
Low – High Resolution
Single Raster Tile Server
w/ raster basemap & imagery data.
Tile Pyramid
24 zoom levels
Geopackage w/
Raster Tile Data
Tile Pyramid
24 zoom levels
OGC Web Services
to online clients/apps
WMS, WMTS, WFS

OGC
®
Brief History
• Foundations established prior to 2012
– SQLite3 (sqlite.org) – SpatiaLite (https://www.gaia-gis.it/fossil/libspatialite/home)
– MBTiles (https://github.com/mapbox/mbtiles-spec/blob/master/1.2/spec.md)
• 2012 – Concept initiated by USACE’s AGC/TEC and NGA at
a hosted TEM with FOSS / commercial software developers
– Started as Google Groups; moved to OGC due to need for standards
development structure and potential IPR concerns
• Oct. 2012 – SWG charter established
• 2013-present – OGC Web Services (OWS) Testbeds
– Phase 9 developed initial draft spec; others built prototype applications
• Feb. 2014 – Encoding Standard (1.0) adopted by OGC
– Mandated as of DISR* 14-2
• Early 2015 – Corrigendum (1.0.1) adopted by OGC
* Defense Information Systems Registry

OGC
®
Benefits
• Supports sharing of raster and vector geospatial
information in a single container
• Supports direct use
– Avoid intermediate format translations (extract, transform, load)
– SQLite is a true relational database with built-in indexing
• Platform independent, supporting multiple computing
environments (hardware and operating system)
– Local storage reduces power requirements and supports
disconnected/intermittent/limited connectivity
– Conserves storage space by allowing multiple applications to
access the same data store

OGC
®
Emerging Uses
• Mobile applications
• Data dissemination, including but not limited to
foundation GEOINT
• Not the solution for everything
– For simpler vector applications, GeoJSON may be plenty
– In some enterprises an SQLite-based solution may be
inappropriate

OGC
®
State of GeoPackage
• Emerging as an important geospatial standard
• Faster adoption than other OGC standards:
– 16+ separate vendors listed on geopackage.org
– Promptly added to the US Defense Information Systems
Registry (DISR)
– Will it win #TheShapefileChallenge ?
• Areas for improvement:
– Data distribution (we are not seeing as much
GeoPackage data in the wild as we could)
– Implementation guidance (we could use more helpful
content on geopackage.org)

OGC
®
GeoPackage Implementation Examples
• GDAL
• Luciad Lightspeed, Mobile, and Fusion
• QGIS
• Esri ArcGIS (10.2.2 for vector, 10.3 for tiles)
• NGA
• SpatiaLite (4.2.0)
• GeoServer
• Compusult
• GeoTools
• US Army ERDC
• Envitia MapLink
• Terrago (GeoPDF)

OGC
®
GeoPackage 1.1
• The SWG has developed a Technical Amendment
to the GeoPackage Encoding Standard
“Where…an OGC Standard is used…but technical changes are
needed, a deliverable may be proposed for amendment. An
amendment alters and/or adds to an existing OGC standard [and
results] in a new version number of the document. An amendment
may consist of additional reference examples, use cases, schema
changes, and other normative and informative content or
clarifications.” (http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-
020r20.html#125)
• Technical Amendment – more than corrigenda, but
less than a completely new edition of the standard.

OGC
®
GeoPackage 1.1 (continued)
• Goal: Improve the standard (especially readability
and interoperability) without harming existing
implementations
• Requires:
Release Notes (15-123r1 posted on Pending
Documents)
SWG Approval
OGC Architecture Board review and approval
– IPR review period
– TC Vote (at TC meeting or by e-vote)
• The plan is for the vote to occur this week.

OGC
®
Review of Substantive Changes
• All work was done in GitHub (see geopackage.org)
• #102 – Add REQ 45 to describe tile matrix width
and height to eliminate interoperability failure
• #132 – Collapse all extensions under Annex F. for
improved readability
• #137 – Add new extension for CRS WKT support
(OGC 12-063r5)
• #147 – Demote metadata / schema to extensions
• #130 – Fix casing of column names for Schema
• #189 – Update Application ID to 1.1

OGC
®
Requirement 45
• Interoperability issue discovered during
GeoPackage Plugfest (2014-5)
– Tile numbering was inconsistent between
implementations – some used “tight” bounds and others
used “potential” bounds to allow sharing between tile sets
• We added the following:
The width of a tile matrix (the difference between min_x and
max_x in gpkg_tile_matrix_set) SHALL equal the product of
matrix_width, tile_width, and pixel_x_size for that zoom level.
Similarly, height of a tile matrix (the difference between min_y
and max_y in gpkg_tile_matrix_set) SHALL equal the product of
matrix_height, tile_height, and pixel_y_size for that zoom level.
This won.

OGC
®
CRS WKT Support
• OGC recently adopted 12-063r5 to address
shortcomings in previous documents
• We want to provide a migration path while not
breaking existing implementations
• Solution: Create a new extension
– Implementations that support this extension add a
column to gpkg_spatial_ref_sys called
“definition_12_063”
– Implementations shall populate both this column and the
original “definition” column
– In some cases, one or the other may be “undefined”

OGC
®
Questions

OGC
®
GPKG-EE IE

OGC
®
NSG Profile

OGC
®
GeoPackage Compliance

OGC
®
Future Considerations
• Over the summer, we conducted an on-line survey to
gauge interest in potential extensions.
• We asked about the following:
– Symbology/Styling
– Multi-Resolution Geometries
– Routing
– New Geometry Types
– New Image Types
– Point Clouds
– UTFGrid
– Synchronization
– Coverages
© 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 25

OGC
®
Survey Results

OGC
®
Testbed 12
• Testbed 12 is at least partially addressing some of
our proposed topic areas
– Symbology/Styling
– Routing
– Others?

OGC
®
Testbed 12 Engineering Reports
• As an aside, the Testbed sponsors have requested
that at least three GeoPackage-related
Engineering Reports be produced
– A082 GeoPackage Routing and Symbology
– A083 GeoPackage Mobile Apps Integration
– A085 GeoPackage Change Request Evaluations
• We will bring these to the SWG for review as per
– https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=66923

OGC
®
Implications for a Symbology Extension
• OGC 15-122r1 evaluated this topic and proposed
the following next steps:
– Discuss this proposal in the broader community (outside
the SWG itself) to reach a consensus on approach.
– Prioritize the use cases and pursue design and
reference implementations of the viable use case(s).
– Establish a separate working group, coordinating with
the GeoPackage SWG (composed of interested
GeoPackage SWG members and other stakeholders)
– Analyze applicable informative references to apply
towards defining a draft specification to address viable
use cases identified.

OGC
®
Motion
• The GeoPackage SWG recommends that OGC
15-122r1 be recommended to the Technical
Committee for release as a Discussion Paper.
– Motion: Jeff Yutzler
– Second: ???
– Discussion?
– Objection to Unanimous Consent?

OGC
®
Multi-Resolution Geometries
• The SWG has determined that the best way to
address this issue is through data modeling as
opposed to a change to the standard
– https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/issues/77
• In response, we posted the following:
– http://www.geopackage.org/modeling_guidelines.html

OGC
®
New Geometry Types
• This capability is already available through two
extensions:
– GeoPackage Non-Linear Geometry Types (F.1)
– User Defined Geometry Types Extension of
GeoPackageBinary Geometry Encoding
• At this time we do not have clear guidance on using
these extensions
– https://github.com/opengeospatial/geopackage/issues/173
• There is some concern that these extensions are
unusable in their current form
• We are looking for volunteers

OGC
®
Other Topic Areas Not Under Development
• New Image Types
• Point Clouds – maybe ask the Point Cloud DWG?
• UTFGrid
• Synchronization
• Coverages
• These can all be handled through extensions…if
we have the will

OGC
®
Making Good Extensions
• May be developed by the SWG or brought in from
outside
• Must have:
Clear Use Case
Sound technical approach
– Must be compatible with clients that just implement the
core
Commitment from critical mass of vendors (usually
3) to implement

GeoPackage SWG Overview

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to GeoPackage SWG Overview

Recently uploaded

GeoPackage SWG Overview