We are pleased to announce the release of DIGGS v1.1. This release includes a number of significant schema changes. The net result is a schema that is more robust and easier to use, far less complex in organization and file size, loads and validates much quicker, and is compliant with GML 3.2 standards.

DIGGS v1.1 primarily addresses domain-independent issues (i.e. XML and GML schema issues) that were identified following the release of DIGGS v1.0a. This is an interim release for use by the DIGGS team in review, and is not intended for broad implementation. An upcoming release of DIGGS v1.2 will address remaining domain-specific issues, and will lead to the release of DIGGS v2.0, the first public version for implementation.

New in DIGGS v1.1:

1. Fixed GML Object-Property rule
2. Fixed import/includes – no longer need OASIS catalog
3. Migrated DIGGS to GML 3.2
4. Implemented a GML profile for DIGGS
5. Reorganized to 5 namespace schemas with one file per namespace
6. Implemented gml:identifier and gml:id
7. Removed unnecessary abstract types
8. Implemented RIM for codelists in lieu of GML dictionaries.
9. Tabular data - retain existing structure, but implement code lists in v1.2 to restrict column types; removed generic table property; tables to be included under specific test features only
10. Geometry - Projects use reference point, linear extent, areal extent; Linear referencing gml method to reference positions in a borehole will be adopted in gml 3.3.
11. Metadata - AssociatedFiles, Roles, Remarks, Specifications, Equipment, BusinessAssociates, Contracts are cast as gml metadata so that gml aware applications will recognize those objects as metadata; No longer assigning metadata properties at the base level to prevent recursion; All features carry associatedFile, roles, and remarks metadata properties; All objects carry remarks metadata properties; All tests are features and carry specifications and equipment metadata properties as default.

The full DIGGS v1.1 schema package (including documentation, examples, and codelists) can accessed at:

http://schemas.diggsml.com/1.1/

The slides from the April 2010 presentation of DIGGS v1.1 can be downloaded in the attachments below.

The project schedule has been revised to reflect the current status of work.

The “Project Plan” (also referred to as the “Project Roadmap”) is presented in this document with details, tasks, and activities to be carried out for the remainder of the Transportation Pooled Fund Project TPF-5(111), “Development of Standards for Geotechnical Management Systems.” A draft version of this project plan was presented at a DIGGS team meeting in Orlando, Florida in late March 2009 (http://www.diggsml.com/march-2009-diggs-meeting-report-project-status-and-development-new-roadmap). Discussions and recommendations stemming from that meeting were used to revise the draft plan. Additionally, in the Summer of 2009, the DIGGS Project Team contracted with Galdos Systems and Compusult Ltd. to carry out independent reviews of DIGGS version 1.0a schemas (http://www.diggsml.com/diggs-project-team-contracts-galdos-systems-and-compusult-ltd-carry-out-review-diggs-version-1-0a). The recommendations stemming from this review were also used to identify tasks.

The Project Plan can be downloaded below. (NOTE -- You'll need to login to the site to see the download link.)

DIGGS needs to develop a sustainable governance structure that can be responsible for the standard, manage maintenance and support, provide a structure for input and new releases and provide a mechanism for keeping the standard international and collaborative. Resulting from the GMS meeting in Orlando, March 25 & 26, 2009, a task committee was assigned to develop and present options for a governance model. The models need to allow for a smooth transition from the current pooled fund (TPF) organization to one that provides long term stability.

The final report can be downloaded below. (NOTE -- You'll need to login to the site to see the download link.)

The DIGGS Project Team contracted with Galdos Systems and Compusult Ltd. to carry out independent reviews of DIGGS version 1.0a. The objectives of this work were to:

(1) Assess the current implementation of DIGGS with GML. (Were GML standards, conventions, best practices, and patterns implemented correctly? Was the appropriate version and/or variation of GML used based upon the requirements of DIGGS?)

(2) Assess if the goals of the DIGGS standard is best implemented as a GML application schema, or if other encoding standards (both GML and non-GML) should be considered.

(3) Assess the strategy that was used in the organization and composition of schema objects and files in the context of the physical observations and data that DIGGS is trying to capture. (Is the schema too decomposed, or appropriate given the requirements of DIGGS?)

(4) Assess the core issues recently documented by the DIGGS Project Team on the discussion forums and at the March 2009 DIGGS meeting in Orlando.

(5) Consider other issues, as appropriate, that may not have identified by the DIGGS Project Team, that exist with the schema design that may impact its application.

Final reports from Galdos and Compusult with findings and recommendations can be downloaded below. (NOTE -- You'll need to login to the site to see the download links below.) These reports will form the basis for work to be conducted later this year. A synthesis of the findings is also available for download.

The DIGGS team met in Orlando, Florida in late March 2009 to assess the current state of DIGGS development and identify the path forward for development and deployment. A copy of the agenda, presentations, and papers can be found in the "Publications" section of this site (http://www.diggsml.com/publications/diggs-invitational-meeting-%E2%80%93-report-project-status-and-development-new-roadmap).

This invitational meeting was held to inform stakeholders on the current status of DIGGS development, identify technical and organizational barriers, and establish a roadmap for the remaining work.

DIGGS is being developed through the Transportation Pooled Fund Study (TPF 5(111)) coordinated by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The focus of the TPF project is to compile the standards development work of the AGS, COSMOS, the University of Florida, and others to create a new international data exchange format. The project, “Development of Standards for Geotechnical Management Systems, Project TPF-5(111),” was approved and funded in the Summer of 2005 at a funding level of approximately $700k over three years to develop the first release of DIGGS.

The DIGGS development effort has been a challenging one over the past few years. There has been a great deal of progress and accomplishments to date, however, a substantial amount of work still remains. As we're approaching the end of the DIGGS v.1 release review period, it is apparent that the level of review and extent of participation during this phase has been limited and insufficient to assess the true readiness of the standard. Furthermore, many have raised concerns regarding the development of DIGGS, some related to technical data model aspects, while others related to organizational issues and how the work is being carried out. It will be important at this meeting come to some understanding on these key project-level issues:

• Re-evaluate our goal for this project. What constitutes success for us? When will we know we've achieved it? What do you expect to get in return from your investment of funds/resources/time in this project?
• Establish a roadmap to achieve the goal. Define the tasks, the milestones, their deliverables, and the costs. Identify how this will get done, and when.
• Identify tools. What types of tools do DIGGS stakeholders need to actively participate in the development and implementation process?
• Reconsider the governance structure. Are there other organizational approaches to enhance partnerships with Pooled Fund Team, AGS, COSMOS, and the commercial software partners to maximize leveraging opportunities and align common needs?
• Reconsider the breadth of data types in DIGGS. Are we trying to capture too many data types through the SIGs?
• Consider enlisting a larger pool of technical experts. Do we need more technical folks involved with the development of the data model and schema?

www.spectraqest.com

The first meeting of the AGS Data Management Sub-Committee for Implementation of DIGGS UK was held on 10th December 2008 at Geotechnics Limited, Coventry, UK.

At the meeting we agreed the goals of the group and timescales for reporting back to the main AGS committee and the DIGGS board. Before is an extract from the minutes of the meeting for general interest.

Anyone interested in helping with the review should contact the group on diggs(at)geotechnics.co.uk

Attendees

Romain Arnould, Fugro
Jackie Bland, Geotechnics/Fugro
Chris Bray, Keynetix
Roger Chandler, Keynetix
Chris Power, Motts
Peter Whittlestone, Arup

Salvatore Caronna, gINT software (corresponding member)

Goals

• We don't/won't do politics.
• We need to be able understand the schema and explain it to others.
• To justify complexity in the schema where we can't remove it.
• Must be able to open the schema in free software, not just proprietary xml viewers.
• Ensure the schema meets all AGS 4.0 requirements and is DIGGS compliant.
• All questions raised during this exercise to be reported back to the main DIGGS committee via their website.
• To test whether DIGGS can work with a local implementation.
• Report back to the main AGS committee on the 31st Jan on the timescale for UK implementation

With these goals in mind, it was decided that the best way forward was to take a step by step approach and split each section into manageable chunks.

We will report our findings and questions via the blogs and forum on the DIGGSML.com website as our review continues.

Our next meeting will be on the 7th Jan.

Evidence of cut and paste of AGS structure to DIGGS. density heading description is "Density at CMPT_MC moisture content" (don't think the old AGS field name CMPT_MC shoud be here!)?