SNPWG report at HSSC6
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•476 views
Presentation given at the 6th Hydrographic Standards and Safety Committee meeting on the SNPWG (Standardization of Nautica Publications Working Group) activies.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to SNPWG report at HSSC6
Similar to SNPWG report at HSSC6 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
SNPWG report at HSSC6
- 1. Hydrographic Services and Standards Committee Report of the Standardization of Nautical Publication Working Group to HSSC6, Viña del Mar, Nov 2014 Presented by Mr. Jens Schröder-Fürstenberg (SNPWG Chair)
- 2. Principal activities and achievements Engagement – 17 Member States, 3 commercial companies, 1 training institute Meetings – April 2014, Rostock, Germany NPUB Product Specs Developments
- 3. IHO Registry- we saw no progress http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/photo-diary/files/2013/07/RUSH-HOUR.jpg
- 4. S-122 – development made progress http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/sites/default/files/field/image/HyundaiShipYard.jpeg
- 5. S-122 Dependancies DQWG; Quality Data section, November 2014 S-100 Edition2; at the earliest by April 2015 DIPWG; portrayal section, optimistically by summer 2015 SNPWG; test data sample extension, by summer 2015 S-101 DCEG Sub-WG; data harmonisation, optimistically by summer 2015
- 6. Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning. (Bill Gates) TS10_8_ENC_Consistenny.doc (IC_ENC 2003) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/billgates161558.html
- 7. Harmonisation is essential http://hqwallbase.com/images/bigest/1680x1050_dolphins-1485667.jpg
- 8. Do we need an arbitration body? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/photos/iPad/ARCTIC%2030%20NEW/GP04XK4.jpg
- 10. NPUB ProdSpecs Development S-123 (Radio Service) – Test data sample – Application schema S-124 (Navigational Service) – Postponed indefinitely S-126 (Physical Environment) and S-127 (Traffic Management) – Test data samples
- 11. Sharing components is appropriate http://thecoolgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Multi-Amphibious-Vehicle.jpg
- 12. SNPWG Mediawiki removed http://westcountyexplorersclub.com.s182622.gridserver.com/wpwuwei/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/overloaded_truck.jpg
- 13. NPUB supports IMO e-Nav http://www.jauntycamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/7-IMG_7023-Engine-Room-control-board.jpg
- 14. Terms of Reference “Objective a) To develop guidelines for the preparation of nautical publications, in a format compatible with digital information systems including but not limited to ECDIS. b) To develop and maintain the IHO publications for which it is responsible. Procedures a) The WG should: (i) Investigate the data format specifications, content and display requirements of digital nautical publications intended for use in ECDIS and other information display devices. (ii) Draft guidance document(s) and/or revised technical resolutions, as appropriate. (iii) Liaise with relevant IHO Technical WG’s to ensure, technical feasibility and compatibility of any developed proposals.” b) Keep under continuous review the following IHO publications or the parts related to Nautical Publications in order to advise the IHO on their updating: (i) M-3 ‘Resolutions of the IHO’ (parts relating to Nautical Publications) (ii) S-12 ‘Standardization of List of Lights and Fog Signals’ c) The WG should liaise with other HSSC WG's and other IHO and international bodies as appropriate and as instructed by HSSC. The WG should work primarily by correspondence. The WG should attempt to meet at least once every two years, normally in connection with another convenient IHO forum. When meetings are scheduled, and in order to allow any WG submissions and reports to be submitted to HSSC on time, WG meetings should not normally occur later than nine weeks before a meeting of the HSSC. d) The WG should identify a work programme for each year, including expected time frame.”
- 15. How is the NPUB integrated in future ECDIS? http://www.likeateam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/demands-of-your-Vision.jpg
- 16. Action requested of HSSC Note Chairman‘s report: HSSC6-05.4A Confirm the development schedule for – S-122 Marine Protected Area – S-123 Radio Services (see HSSC6-05.4A) Endorse the continuance of the Work Plan Endorse the new Terms of Reference
Editor's Notes
- First of all, as the HSSC Chair assumed, you might be famililiar with the SNPWG report. Thus, I will be presenting the summary of the work done, the challenges and the future plans. And, I‘m very grateful and say thank you to all of my team members coming from HOs and industry who make the SNPWG work happen.
- I would like to tell you a story. The SNPWG started the development of the NPUB data model years ago. For a while, we maintained two different word files containing the collection of features, attributes. We learnt that the TSMAD introduced Information classes and we created a third file. Then, we considered that the file handling is insufficient and we discussed alternatives. The SNPWG wiki was born. The word files content was transfered to the wiki environment and maintained from then on. With the introduction of the IHO registry we thought it would be good to shift the data from the wiki to the registry. Very soon we experienced the limits of the sofware- no sandbox function, no bulk loading. In addition, it was not possible to keep a status of an entry pending. Meantime, an improved registry test version was introduced by TSMAD and the SNPWG provided feedback and further improvement suggestions. That is the lastest status. As the HSSC Chair stated last meeting, the marketing of the S-100 was or is good. The available tools are insufficient or simply don‘t exist. You need an example: It could not be seen if one as a user is logged in or not. We tried to upload the MPA feature to the registry and have been informed that we would be contatced soo. That is now 6 month ago. Although the submission could be seenat the NPUB register, the search function doesn‘t provide an appropriate result. That is the latest update of the progress of adding information to the registry. We are still awaiting significant improvement.
- During the last reporting period the SNPWG pushed the development of the MPA ProdSpec. The test data sample has experienced several reviews and could be considered as stable. The MPA data model is stable. The application schema is completed. The DCEG is drafted. The Feature Concept Dictionary is ready. The Feature Catalogue has been developed by using a Feature Catalogue Builder developed by the ROK outside the IHO S-100 registry environment.
- The S-100 Edition2 was heavily influenced by the SNPWG requests. Especially the GML use was considered as an important step to open the S-100 Universal Hydrographic Model to a wider use within the geospatial domain. The group defined a set of context features to support the provision of a stand alone S-100 based MPA Product Specification. These features should be implemented into to application schema and consequently in the Feature Catalogue soon. Estimate 9 months after the S-100 Edition 2 endorsement the core text of the ProdSpec would be ready. The HSSC will receive a more specific update at the next meeting.
- Do you really believe that the mariner is happy to see such a screen when the IHO promised a significant improvement of the ECDIS performance based on S-100?
- The development of the S-101 DCEG and the S-122 in parallel caused problems of the intended common data structure. Data model harmonisation with S-101 DCEG is initiated but will not start before February 2015. Meantime we provided data model proposals on Temporal information Communication information to the S-101 DCEG team. Independent from the starting data the S-101 DCEG, the DQWG and the SNPWG already started to harmonise the data model of the Data quality information Depending on the development progress of the S-101 DCEG, it is most likely that more areas of harmonisation may explored. The harmonisation is essential to simplify the workload of the mariner if he works with two different ProdSpecs on the ECDIS screen. The contact nformation could be used as an example. Do we really want to stress the mariner by providing two ways of interpreting contact information? We believe that if every ProdSpec provides different encoding and portrayal rules, we might looss the benifits of having S-100.
- So far, the harmonsiation success based solely on the goodwill of the involved parties. To prevent the future ECDIS from such potential misinterpretations and mistrusts by the mariner, the different views on the conflict topic should be presented and an appropriate body should find a binding decision for both. If HSSC in a position to do that or would it be proportionate to set up a specific working group which works as an arbitration body?
- Having resolved all the open problems we can continue with the development of the S-122 ProdSpec, the completion could be scheduled for 2016 for beginning the testing phase.
- It is important to minimise the workload for the ProdSpec developement teams. Therefore, the SNPWG developed a application schema on which more than one ProdSpec could be based on. In particular, we tried to model the context features, communication information regulations, restrictions, recommendations, nautical information temporal information in a way that those application schema fragments could be used frequently.
- As mentioned at one of the first slides, this is about the SNPWG wiki. The SNPWG Wiki which was hosted on a private Webspace for the last few years was moved to an IHO environment. That was necessary because it elevated the wiki up to a more official status.
- ECDIS is one of the IMO e-Navigation key elements. The SNPWG provides or is planning to provide Product Specification which are providing a standardised model for NPUB information. Improving the technical environment on a ship by providing a certain level of standardisation is one benefit of the IMO e-Navigation strategy. The standardisation must be based on a common interpretation of a given fact. Thus, a data model behind the common interpretation is desirable. By providing an proportionate data model, the SNPWG work could support the following e-Nav Maritime Service Solutions: Standardised reporting Reliabilty, resilience and integrity of navigational information Integration and presentation of available information Improved communication In particular, the following Maritime Service Portfolios can benefit from the SNPWG data model: - (MSP 4) Local Port Service (LPS); - (MSP 6) pilotage service; - (MSP 7) tugs service; - (MSP 8) vessel shore reporting; - (MSP 10) Maritime Assistance Service (MAS); - (MSP 11) nautical chart service; (MSP 12) nautical publications service;
- We know and we are fully aware that the SNPWG has no mandate to discuss the following questions but it seems proportionate from the technical point of view to ask such questions. Knowing that the use of such products is being supported by SOLAS V, how is the strategy if the development of the first NPUB ProdSpec, namely the S-122 MPA ProdSpec, is completed? Does the IHO consider ways to implement the NPUB product into future ECDIS Systems? We have to discuss: the product data check, the data portrayal, the data protection, the data delivery. In addition, the IEC should be contacted to discuss effects of the NPUB ProdSpec use in ECDIS.