1. The S-121 Maritime Limits and Boundaries Standard
An introduction
OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting
Marine Domain Working Group
September 11-15th, Southampton, United-Kingdoms
S121PT

2. Content S-121 Project Team S-121 Demo S-121 Timeline S-121 Objectives
Mandate
S-121 Timeline
Terms of reference
History
Membership
S-121 Objectives
Next steps
Challenges
S-121 Structure
Questions
Data Model
Exchange Formats
S121PT

3. S-121 Maritime Limits and Boundaries (MLBs) Standard Project Team
S121PT

4. What is the mandate
To develop a standard to support the management, description and exchange of a State’s Maritime Sovereignty, Sovereign rights extents and associated juridical zones.
The mandate stems from UN General Assembly resolutions requesting the Secretary-General to improve the existing geographic information system for the deposit by States of charts and geographical coordinates concerning maritime zones, including lines of delimitation in particular by implementing, in co-operation with relevant international organizations technical standards for the collection, storage and dissemination of the information deposited, in order to ensure compatibility among the Geographic Information System, electronic nautical charts and other systems developed by these organizations.
Picture:
S121PT

5. Why do we need a new standard
Different context
MLBs legal context needs to be described
All MLBs objects
Conceptual objects
Legal context
Parties & Roles
Rights, Restrictions & Responsibilities
Source description
Versioning
New requirements
Findings
Such a framework is not available in S-100
The description of Maritime Limits and Boundaries features implies more than just the description of geospatial features. The MLBs are legal entities defining the extent of a State’s sovereignty and sovereign rights. As a State attempts to represent these MLBs geospatially, it is becoming important to provide the capacity for a State to embed along with these geospatial objects the legal context.
The complexity associated with the legal description of MLBs is not a topic that is covered in any of the International Hydrographic Organization Standards. In fact the proper depiction of MLBs features in order to be flexible enough to be used by all States, needs to capacity to represent objects conceptually, to link multiple parties and roles, rights, restrictions and responsibilities to a specific MLBs geospatial object. Furthermore supporting versioning and source description is also a requirement essential to support proper description of MLBs.
These requirements clearly identify the needs for the creation of a new IHO standards to support MLBs.
S121PT

6. Terms of Reference S-121 MLBs Project team was tasked to:
Define a proposed data model;
Create an S-100 conformant product specification for MLBs to support coastal States’ depository obligations in accordance with the Convention;
Determine if S-100 needs to be extended to facilitate the implementation of the deposit obligation of coastal States’ under the Convention.
The terms of references initially presented at the first S121 Project Team meeting were refined to better match the mandate.
Picture:
S121PT

7. Membership of the S-121 MLBs project team (Current Participation)
IHO - States:
Australia, Canada, China, France, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America
International bodies:
UN (GGIM, DOALOS), IHO (IHB, ABLOS, S-100), OGC, ISO-19152, INSPIRE
Industry:
ESRI
Academia:
University of Seoul
The membership of the S-121 in open and we welcome any IHO Member States to join and participate in the development of this standard.
The industry is showing a growing interest in the standard but are invited as observers only until a solid first draft satisfying the S121 project team Member States, advisory and reporting bodies (such as S-100, ABLOS, IHB).
S121PT

8. S-121 MLBs Standard Objectives
S121PT

9. What are S-121 MLBs standard objectives
Focussed
Support MLBs legal and geospatial description
Authoritative
Represent States’ view (structure and formats)
Correct
Support precise and accurate MLBs description
Flexible
Support all user types and their MLBs usages.
Interoperable
IHO S-100, and ISO standards compliant
Usable
Simple, practical, expandable and implementable
Data versioning to support and monitor changes
Version
This list of objectives is long but addresses the MLBs management requirements. The S-121 standard enable the realization of each of these objectives.
Linkage to administrative source documents
Referenced
S121PT

10. S-121 MLBs Standard Structure
S121PT

11. The S-121 MLBs Standard Structure
Based on two levels which follows the basic premise of ISO TC211 of the separation of the “carrier from the content”.
Administer, manage and maintain MLBs
Data Model
Distribute and make MLBs accessible
Exchange formats
Separate the carrier from the content. Where the carrier is the exchange format and the content been the administered information is quite only logical. For example, before producing a financial report, incomes and expenditures are to be gathered and logically organized. Thus before exchanging MLBs, a State administer, manage and maintain the MLBs in some form of data model.
The S-121 data model is by all means not meant to be prescriptive, but instead it aims to be as open as possible. The data model, is really what hold the most information about the MLBs, whereas exchange formats may be only representing a subset of the information found in the data model, a subset extracted and formatted in such a way to fit specific purposes or use cases.
S121PT

12. The S-121 MLBs standard Data Model
S121PT

13. Land Administration Domain Model
S-121 Strategy
Build on existing standards:
Facilitate development
Maximise interoperability
Maximise extensibility
ISO – LADM
Land Administration Domain Model
Before launching this endeavour, a lot of research went towards finding a viable solution already available in other standards.
Luckily, we found the ISO standard on Land Administration Domain Model, which also deals with legal objects, more precisely Land Cadastres.
The S-121 PT strategy is to build on other existing standards, because there is no need to reinvent the wheel. In fact, building on other standards generates a lot of advantages:
1- Facilitate development
2- Maximize interoperability
3- Maximize extensibility
Picture:
S121PT

14. Benefits: Acts as a Foundation
To describe all MLBs objects as defined in UNCLOS
That is expandable and can support other maritime objects (State specific MLBs)
Supports the legal administration of the marine domain.
The S-121 standard focus on addressing the Maritime Limits and Boundaries as described in UNCLOS.
By construction, the standard being made expandable so it can not only cover MLBs UNCLOS objects, but also support the description of other States specific maritime objects.
Doing so, the S-121 PT came to realize that we are de facto building a framework able to support the legal administration of the marine domain.
S121PT

15. FINDINGS : Improved interoperability
Integrating the LADM within the S-100 series brings both Land and Marine domains to a common data model structure. Does facilitate better management of littoral space.
Picture:
S121PT

16. A Key Concept A boundary is a demarcation between two zones.
A boundary has no area on which a jurisdiction or a right can apply.
Conceptually and practically, jurisdiction attributes must be carried by zones
Boundary
Canada
juridical zone
USA
juridical
zone
One key concept that was identified as a requirement (even before the ISO standard was identified as a solution), is to make a clear differentiation between MLBs Point, Lines and Zones constituents, simply because States have different requirements and constraints and not all of them can produce complete zones to depict the main juridical zones depicted in UNCLOS (Internal Waters, Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Continental Shelf) on which specific rights, restrictions and responsibilities apply.
In case were closed zone cannot be generated, a State is left with a mixture of points, outer limits and international boundaries to define their MLBs zones conceptually.
Logically and practically speaking a line or point does not have an area on which rights can be applied to. Points and lines can at best delimit where the right extent to. It is only zones and volumes that can be attributed with specific rights.
The use of the ISO is beneficial because it not only supports the description of these conceptual zones, but it also provides a framework to attach specific Rights, Restrictions, and Responsibilities to zones or volumes (whether real or conceptual ones).
Picture:
S121PT

17. The Core Features as per UNCLOS
Location
Limit
Zone
Generic
Core
Exclusive Economic Zone
Internal Water
Baselines
Continental Shelf
Territorial Sea
The High Sea
Contiguous Zone
The Area
Core Zone’s Outer Limits
International Boundaries
Specific
One of the primary focus of the S-121 is to represent the core MLBs features found in UNCLOS, but also provide capacity for extension to support other States specific objects.
The S-121 standard is not meant to be prescriptive, but instead be flexible and usable by all (see the other objectives listed before).
S121PT

18. The Model: How does it work
The S-121 uses four packages
on which we can apply
Sourcing
Versioning
Spatial Unit
Administrative Unit
Right, Responsibility, and Restriction Unit
Party Unit
Core Features
State Specific Features
In order to describe all Core MLBs features or even State Specific features, the S-121 make use of 4 main packages:
The Spatial Units which supports the geospatial description of the MLBs features (Lat/Lon and Datum) and attributes (Name, type).
The Administrative Unit bring together one or many zones on which rights, restriction and responsibility are applied uniformly (e.g.: All State territorial sea polygons). Technically, this Administrative Unit is composed of one or many spatial units and links to one or many rights.
The Right, Responsibility, and Restriction Unit digitally describe the legal aspects of the MLBs features.
The Party Unit describes both the actor and its role relative to define Right, Restriction or Responsibility.
In addition, this whole structure or model is also supported by it Sourcing and Versionning capacities which truly unlock the full administrative and management power of the standard.
Yet again, the S-121 bridges together the ISO to the IHO S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model standards to generate a functional marine administration domain model that focuses of the description of Maritime Limits and Boundaries features as described in UNCLOS.
S121PT

19. The S-121 MLBs standard Exchange Formats
S121PT

20. Exchange formats Transfer from and to Geodatabase
State Specific Use Case (Data Model)
Geodatabase
TESARE
CONZNE
EXEZNE
COSARE
FHSZNE …
Production Use Case
Electronic nautical chart
Transfer from and to
Legal Use Case & Public Use Case
Human & computer readable format
From the State specific implementation of the S-121 data model (minimal or detailed) used to administer, maintain the whole State’s MLBs.
A State has to support diverse usages of MLBs:
The production of electronic nautical chart for which the exchange format will have to comply with S-101 standard.
The distribution of legal documents and publicly available datasets, for which the S-121 PT is proposing the creation of a Human-Computer readable format that will satisfy lawyer readability requirements, but will also enable the public to understand the role of these MLBs. All that in a format that a computer will recognize enabling it to reconstitute the information in a geodatabase following the S-121 data model structure.
Backward compatibility is essential for both use case but it is expected that these exchange formats will be representing only a subset of the information stored in a State Specific Geodatabase, and for good reason. These exchange formats are to enable the efficient distribution of specific information needed to satisfy specific usages.
Picture:
S121PT

21. DEMO of S-121 MLBs standard data model applied

22. Basic Geometric Components
Seaward
Land
Basepoints
Straight Baseline
Normal Baseline
Territorial Sea Outer Limit
Territorial Sea Area
This simple scenario equate this basic representation where all components a geometrically available.

23. Simplistic Geometric Scenario
Point
Curve
Surface
In this simplistic scenario, where all geometries are available (the point, the curve and the surface). As a result, both the basepoint, the territorial sea outer limit and the territorial sea itself can be depicted for the Country A.

24. Hypothetic Best Case Scenario
Informative
(ISO – LADM)
Parties
(S121_Party)
Country A
(Role: Owner)
Sources
(S121_Source)
Legal Document X
Administrative (S121_BAUnit)
(For Zone or Space object only)
T.S.
Rights
(S121_Right)
Sovereignty
Geometries (S121_SpatialAttributeType)
Surface
Curve
Point
Geospatial
(IHO S-100 – Universal Model)
Objects
(S121_FeatureUnit)
T.S. Area(+vertical domain)
T.S. Outer Limit
Basepoint
In this case:
At the Spatial object level
The point geometry is used to define the basepoint
The computed curve geometry is used to define the Territorial Sea outer limit
The surface geometry is used to define the Territorial Sea Area.
At the Administration level
Using the Territorial Sea Area an administrative object can be defined (this object could link to more than one Territorial Sea area).
At the Legal level
A « Sovereignty » Right object is defined and is attached to the administration object. The beauty of this system is that we can attach to this administrative as many other rights, restrictions and responsibilities as needed.
At the Party level
For which every Right, Restriction and Responsibility, in this case a Right, be attached to a specific Party detailing its role.
At the Source level, well any entity in the model can be sources, to support decision tracking, and enable healthy management and administration practices.

25. The S-121 Timeline
S121PT

26. Short S-121 History
Oct. 2007
DOALOS approached the IHO with a request to identify appropriate technical standards.
Nov. 2013
IHO endorsed the creation of the S-121 project team
Dec. 2013
Initial developments work were triggered by the submission of a S-121 draft proposal by Australia.
Aug. 2014
Australia and Canada officialised a cooperation on the development of S-121 (Hydro News).
December 2016
The first S-121 PT meeting was officially launched in the United Nation Head-Quarters, NY.
May 2017
The second S-121 PT meeting was done through WebEx
June 2017
S-121 liaison meeting between ISO, OGC and IHO
September 2017
OGC Meeting – Marine Domain Working Group
S-121 3rd Project Team Meeting – WebEx
December 2017
S-121 4th Project Team Meeting – Face to Face

27. S-121 Next steps By the end of fall 2017:
Refine feature description
Refine data exchange formats
By the end of the Calendar year 2017:
Provide digital implementation examples
Provide completely revised documentation
Showcase the new website and communication strategy
Testing and implementation scenarios
First official release is expected on:
December 2018
The S121 PT is quite active and is attempting to meet at least 3 times a year to support rapid development and see rapid advancement. Any IHO Member States wishing to participate are welcome to register and contribute.
Picture:
S121PT

28. The S-121 Challenges
S121PT

29. Challenges INTEGRATION SCOPE ADMINISTRATION
ISO and S-100 have nomenclature differences.
S-100 Dictionary not supporting multiple definitions for a single entry, forcing the creation of unwanted complex attribute and object names.
SCOPE
MLBs are the foundation delimiting the marine juridical domain. Sensible issue dear to the Member States.
The integration of ISO makes the standard expendable to other usages such internal management, marine cadaster, fisheries.
ADMINISTRATION
First S-100 standard organising the information objects to support administration and legal description.
Separates the carrier (exchange format) from the content (administered data).
Challenges
Links: Images

30. Questions:
Picture:
S121PT