PipelineML 2.0 Candidate Conceptual Model

We’re excited to share the progress we’ve made on the PipelineML 2.0 conceptual model!

This updated version focuses on improving the clarity and consistency of inheritance relationships within the model. You’ll notice in the  UML diagram below that some features have been shifted between classes to achieve this goal.

Please keep in mind:

  • This is a work in progress, and the design is not yet finalized.
  • Do not build integrations or write code based on this model yet.

We welcome your feedback on the changes reflected in the latest version of the model.

PipelineML 2.0 Status Update

We have been working in the background for several years now preparing for a 2.0 release of PipelineML. The data interchange standard is being used in production environments now and lessons are being learned on a daily basis as to how best to improve its design. We continue collecting this information and using it through iterations of design improvement lifecycles.

Continue reading

Why We Are Not Actively Promoting PipelineML

We’re excited about PipelineML and the potential it holds, but we’re prioritizing responsible development over immediate publicity. Before we start promoting it heavily, we want to ensure its stability and effectiveness through real-world use cases. We’ll be integrating PipelineML into select production projects to gather valuable feedback that will guide potential improvements. This approach allows us to learn and iterate before making PipelineML widely available.

Continue reading

PipelineML Technical Specification Officially Published by OGC

After many thousands of hours of work by many people, the OGC published the official PipelineML Technical Specification that describes the abstract specification and XML/GML encoding standard. You will find the official publication at https://www.ogc.org/standard/pipelineml/. Feel free to let me know if you have any outstanding questions about the specification, or if you need any help in adopting the standard.

Continue reading

PipelineML Standard Approved by OGC

We have had considerable interaction with members of the OGC Architecture Board and Technical Committee over the past few months as our proposal has gone through a lengthy review process. Some minor tweaks were recommended by Carl Reed, who did a detailed assessment of the 300-page technical specification. After all the review and voting processes were complete, our proposal was approved by all stages and PipelineML is now an official OGC GML application schema standard for the interchange of geospatial data. It will take a bit longer for the specification to undergo editing by OGC staff before it is officially published on the OGC portal. Stay tuned for further updates.

Continue reading

PipelineML Standard Submitted

After many years of hard work on the part of countless individuals, today we submitted the abstract specification along with an encoding standard for PipelineML to the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) for consideration of approval. We intentionally kept the scope of this first version small and focused only on defining the characteristics of the coterminous components (linepipe, meters, valves, reducers, etc.), appurtenances (casings, coatings, sleeves, etc.), and connectors (girthwelds, tees, taps, etc.). By limiting the scope to only these pipeline assets, it leaves the future open to aligning with other existing standards, as well as expansion into other areas as we partner with other subject matter experts. We are looking forward to seeing how the OGC receives this proposal, and where we go from here.

Continue reading

PipelineML Conceptual Model Established

After years of collaborative work, we have finally gotten agreement from all parties on the following abstract class model. This shows the inheritance of all objects/features that will be supported in this initial version of PipelineML. We would love to get your thoughts and feedback as we continue to mature this oil and gas midstream asset data interchange standard.

Continue reading

PipelineML Scope Established

We have spent a consider amount of time determining the initial scope for PipelineML. We want the scope to be fairly narrow because we want just enough that we can complete it in a reasonable amount of time. We also want to leave plenty of room in the future to work in conjunction with other standards where there may be overlap in scope. We expect to expand the scope as time goes and we determine which priorities are commonly shared among stakeholders. For now, see the diagram below as it shows the scope we have determined for PipelineML 1.0.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – 2017 Southampton, UK

We held our quarterly OGC technical committee meeting on September 13, 2017 at the Southampton, UK event. The meeting was well attended (both physically in UK as well as online). Discussion was robust and many individuals contributed to the discussions on how best to advance this standards development initiative. The meeting agenda included the following:

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – 2017 St. John’s, Newfoundland

A meeting on the PipelineML standards initiative took place in St. John’s, Newfoundland on June 28th, 2017. Discussions centered on recent progress, including the completion of core component definitions and reference codes, as well as ongoing challenges like component attribute inheritance and avoiding redundancy with other standards. The group also explored potential harmonization with LandInfra and planned an upcoming interoperability experiment to further develop the initiative.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – 2017 Delft, The Netherlands

A PipelineML SWG meeting was held in Delft, Netherlands on March 23, 2017. The meeting focused on the status of the PipelineML standard and next steps for development. Discussions included revisions to the conceptual model and modular schemas, the potential for including offshore assets and merging with the LandInfra standard, and the definition of core component attributions. The meeting also addressed future considerations for the standard, such as cathodic protection, safety, and regulatory requirements. Finally, the meeting outlined various ways for attendees to participate in the development of the PipelineML standard.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – 2016 Taichung, Taiwan

The OGC PipelineML SWG held a low-attendance quarterly meeting in Taichung, Taiwan, due to the inconvenient time zone. The meeting covered introductory topics, reviewed the conceptual model and ongoing discussions with LandInfra, and planned for a future meeting in Delft, Netherlands with the expectation of higher attendance and a more convenient time.

Continue reading

Status Update

We are making excellent progress on the list of attributes to be supported in the first version of PipelineML. As you may know, Jan Stuckens in Belgium was voted in as a co-chair of the Standards Working Group. We are holding weekly conference calls where we are going through our individual lists of component attributes and determining matches, overlaps and gaps. It is an arduous process. However, the results are quite encouraging. We are finding over 90% matches. The remaining 10% of attributes are being flagged for inclusion or exclusion based on our discussions.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – Orlando 2016

Our OGC Technical Committee meeting held on September 21, 2016 in Orlando, FL USA went well. This was the 100th occurrence of the OGC TC meetings. We briefly reviewed decisions made in previous meetings. We discussed our concepts for modularizing our schema and presented a package dependency UML diagram that illustrated our concepts. There was solid agreement on the approach. Jan Stuckens and I presented the most recent version of our conceptual model as a UML class diagram.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – Dublin 2016

This week, the PipelineML SWG meeting focused on several key topics:

Standardization progress: The group discussed ongoing revisions to the core schema based on prototyping, refined component definitions, and reference code lists. They also aimed to prepare for a major revision in September.
New co-chair: Jan Stuckens from Belgium was elected as the new co-chair to replace Terry Strahan.
Internationalization: The meeting addressed challenges of international unit of measure standardization and potential approaches like custom enumerations or leveraging existing resources. They also discussed best practices for handling international encoding and terminology.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – Sydney 2015

The OGC PipelineML SWG meeting at the Sydney Technical Committee focused on reviewing Prototype 1, planning Prototype 2, and discussing internationalization challenges.

Key points included:

Positive feedback received on Prototype 1, including the schema, sample data, and documentation.
Prototype 2 scope defined: migrating metadata, binding data to external reference code lists, and creating diverse sample data packages.

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – Boulder 2015

We held a heavily attended meeting this week in Dublin (as most of the current stakeholders are in the U.S.). Several members of the PODS Association were on hand. We had a wide variety of dialogue that involved retracing much of the work undertaken to date as well as philosophical and technical discussions. The following was our meeting agenda:

Continue reading

OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – Geneva 2014

This document summarizes the notes from a PipelineML SWG meeting held in Geneva on June 10, 2014. Key points include: Electing John Tisdale and Terry Strahan as Chair and Co-chair, respectively, following discussions on avoiding conflicts of interest. Reviewing key milestones leading to the formation of PipelineML.

Continue reading

OGC Ad-hoc Meeting – Washington DC 2014

We held an ad-hoc meeting at the OGC Technical Committee meetings in Washington DC. Gary Hoover, Dion Duran and myself traveled to DC to attend this special meeting in person. We were joined by around 90 people in attendance remotely as well as in person. The following was our agenda:

Continue reading