OGC PipelineML SWG Meeting – 2017 Delft, The Netherlands

 In Status Update

Our meeting in Delft, The Netherlands took place on March 23, 2017. The following are our agenda:

  • Welcome and Introduction
  • Recommended Resources for new participants
  • Where are we – status of PipelineML
  • Recent developments
    • Modular schema revisions
    • Conceptual model revisions
    • Component attribution definition
  • Key Discussion Points
  • Next Steps
    • Completion of attribution definitions
    • Application schema generation and schema refinement
    • Interoperability experiment
    • Roadmap
  • How to participate
  • Q&A

Jan Stuckens, our Co-chair from Belgium, was present in person at the meeting. So, he led much of the presentation. There were about 9 member present in Delft as well as up to 5 people attending online for a total of 14 attendees. The following notes were taken.

  • Welcome (Jan)
  • Introductions
    • Jan Stuckens
    • John Tisdale
    • Local Attendees
    • Remote Attendees
  • Pipeline SWG Objectives – http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/pipemlswg
  • Public-facing document – Introduction to PipelineML available at http://www.pipelineml.org/documents/
  • Contact the Chairs
  • Status Update
    • PipelineML SWG started in March 2014
    • Extensive encoding prototyping in 2014-2015 to help determine our conceptual model framework
    • Developed conceptual model in 2016
    • Defining feature attribution and inheritance modeling in 2017
    • Our goal is to have our conceptual and encoding standard proposal for Core schema ready for AB submission by end of 2017
    • Ongoing discussions with LandInfra DWG/SWG about harmonization of our standards efforts
  • Revisions to the package dependencies or modular schemas were discussed by John Tisdale
  • Recent revisions made to the conceptual model was discussed by Jan and John
  • The location of the component (Feature) attribute documents on the OGC portal were covered. The linepipe attribution document was opened and the contents quickly reviewed by Jan.
  • Key Discussion Points
    • Discuss potential extension of standard to support OffShore midstream assets (Petrobras/Brazil). We discussed the potential of including offshore midstream assets in the future. It was mentioned that such assets could be included in the core schema instead of using an Offshore schema.
    • Discuss potential adjustments to harmonize or even merge with LandInfra
      • Advantages of merger
      • Disadvantages of merger
    • The advantages and disadvantages of merger with LandInfra were discussed at length. It was mentioned that the next step will be to hold an offline conference call with the key stakeholders of LandInfra for additional conversation on the topic.
  • Next Steps were discussed, including:
  • Core componentry attribution
    • Elbow, Tap, Reducer, Cap, Pump, Compressor, Meter LauncherReceiver
    • PipeConnection
    • Sleeve, LinepipeCoating, Casing
    • StationEquation, Assembly, Pipeline
  • Application schema generation
  • Schema Refinement
  • Interoperability Experiment
    • PipelineML Future Roadmap were mentioned:
    • Cathodic protection
      • Cathodic prot cables, anode beds, measure points…
    • Safety
      • Beacons, marker stones, physical protection
    • Connectivity
      • Connectivity model vs topology
    • Operations
      • Operational state, gas type, standard operational pressure
      • Real-time attribution?
    • Survey
      • Survey info, accuracy, equipment, date
    • Regulatory
      • Multiple national regulatory standards
      • Common subpackage?
    • Jan discussed how people can participate in the standards development initiative. This included the following points:
    • Document Reviewer (OGC membership recommended)
      • Feedback on conceptual model, UOM, attribution
    • Interoperability Experiment (OGC membership NOT required)
      • Test standard on corporate asset data model
    • Active Contributor (OGC membership required)
      • Selected topics e.g.
        • Connectivity submodel
        • Addition of specific componentry e.g. off-shore
        • Work out specific packages (to be discussed)
    • Additional notes from Q&A discussions include the following:
    • The question was raised as to whether we should include a Metadata schema. We concluded that metadata was needed within each schema and therefore it was not necessary.
    • The possibility of including a Maintenance Schema in addition to Operations was discussed. We decided to give more careful consideration of this concept
    • It wad discussed that we should consider renaming the Appurtenance abstract class to something else as this name is used in INSPIRE with a different meaning and may cause confusion. We will give this matter additional consideration.
    • An attendee suggested Facility could be a specific sub-type of Assembly – Facility may have a one to many relationship
    • Assembly – connects 2 or more components. Should the conceptual model be revised? Assess further.
    • An attendee mentioned the need to support an Unknown series of components – not use linepipe but give a unique type. This was considered a valid point and warranted additional consideration.
Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt

Start typing and press Enter to search