Standards stuff …

PIDX Field Ticket Guideline. EU Financial Transparency Gateway. CAPE-OPEN 2.0. Energistics Energy Transfer Protocol V1.2. IOGP Report 373-26, GoM coordinate transformations. OGC API Features Part 1. ISO/IEC JTC1, ETSI, oneM2M, W3C AIOTI. NASA SWEET. XBRL. NIST’s new foot.

PIDX has released a Field Ticket Business Process Guideline document, a 12 page explainer covering the use of the PIDX XML field ticket in a typical oil country transaction.

The European Commission has announced the ‘EU Financial Transparency Gateway’ (EFTG), a blockchain-based pilot project for sharing data financial data. The EFTG is claimed to give citizens and investors access to public regulated information.

Speaking at CAPE-OPEN 2019, Shell’s Mark Stijnman presented his views on an upcoming CAPE-OPEN 2.0 edition of the chemical process modelling standard. Cape-Open needs to evolve to multi-core computing and for deployment in the cloud, possibly with a standardized web API. The thermodynamic package and the unit operation packages both need a redesign. More from Cape-Open.

Energistics Energy Transfer Protocol (ETP) V1.2 is will be now out for public review real soon now. In 2020, Energistics is to ‘explore an optimal approach for WITSML data accessibility for data analytics platforms and applications’. Energistics also received an endorsement from OSDU lead Johan Krebbers (Shell) who stated, ‘The development and deployment of the OSDU Platform with the embedded Energistics standards will be an important step change for this industry’.

The Geomatics Committee of the IOGP has released Report 373-26, Coordinate transformations in the US Gulf of Mexico OCS a.k.a. Guidance Note 26, describing the use of coordinate reference systems and transformations. Key issues deal with in the report are the replacement of NADCON with NADCON5 and the use of GNSS measurements made in a dynamic CRS (WGS 84).

The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has published its first API standard, OGC API - Features - Part 1: Core. The API building blocks allow for the creation, modification and query of geographical features in web maps. The core spec covers geometries in WGS 84 and fine-grained access to data. The standard was developed in coordination with ISO / TC 211 and is currently under consideration by ISO for approval and publication.

A cross-organization expert group involving ISO/IEC JTC1, ETSI, oneM2M and W3C are collaborating with AIOTI on accelerating adoption of semantic technologies in the internet of things. The group has published two white papers on semantic interoperability viz. ‘Semantic IoT Solutions - A Developer Perspective’ and ‘Towards semantic interoperability standards based on ontologies’.

The Semantic Technologies Committee of ESIP, NASA’s Earth sciences information partners, has released V 3.4.0 of SWEET, the Semantic web for earth and environmental terminology, a suite of over 6,900 concepts in 225 ontologies covering earth system science. SWEET ontologies are written in W3C Turtle and are available under the Apache license. More from the SWEET homepage.

The World wide web consortium has just celebrated its 25th anniversary.

The XBRL Standards Board has a candidate recommendation for a XBRL-CSV specification, combining the ‘exceptionally efficient’ CSV format, with the taxonomy-backed structured data of XBRL. More from XBRL.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology has announced that the US survey foot is to retire in 2022, along with the modernization of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). The US foot will be replaced by the ‘foot’ (formerly known as the international foot) equal to 0.3048 meter exactly for all applications. The two definitions differ by around 0.01 foot* per mile. More from NIST.

* NIST did not actually specify which foot it used for this delta! So we cheekily pinged NOAA and got this rather informative reply…


I assume your question is tongue-in-cheek, but for fun, let’s take a look at this. There are actually four permutations, because it can be evaluated in international feet and miles, and in U.S. survey feet and miles. For each case, the absolute value of the difference, to 14 decimal places, is:

• 0.01055999999944 international foot per international mile

• 0.01056004223957 international foot per U.S. survey mile

• 0.01055997887944 U.S. survey foot per international mile

• 0.01056002111949 U.S. survey foot per U.S. survey mile

Although offered in jest, this does illustrate why having two nearly identical versions of the foot in current use creates confusion. There are many actual examples that do cause real problems.


Michael Dennis

Click here to comment on this article

Click here to view this article in context on a desktop

© Oil IT Journal - all rights reserved.