Hello,
and thanks to the chair for providing this slot.

I am Erik Stubkjær, Danish professor emeritus in cadastre.
Co-author Paul Scarponcini is the chairman of the Open Geospatial Consortium's LandInfra Software Working Group. We have worked together during the last two years to prepare the Land Division part of LandInfra.

Overview

Our issue of today: Harmonization of standards, is as old as languages. Why do we need several languages? Or put from another perspective: Why do we need several professions?

OK, let's focus on todays themes. The Land Administration Domain Model is adopted and promulgated by the International Organisation for Standardization, and I'll use its universe of discourse as a basis for a brief characteristic of related efforts, and conclude with some proposals for next steps

The universe of discourse

The Land Administration Domain Model accounts for the holders of rights, e.g. in term of owners, but also the professionals and the agencies, who support the legal institutions.
They detail the domain from both legal and spatial perspectives, and record the details to provide proof for past decisions.
The domain, the universe of discourse, is influenced also by technology in terms of hardware and software, and moreover by those, who develope and market the technology, and of cause of the organizations who are involved in the development of standards.

Members of the LADM family

I have selected a list of LADM-related standardization efforts. It may be a matter of choice, who belongs to the family or not. I include the Social Tenure Domain Model and the two standardization efforts, which originated in the LandXML scheme, namely its development into the ePlan in use by the Australian states and New Zealand, and into the recent OGC Land and Infrastructure Conceptual Model Standard (LandInfra for short).

CityGML might be included, because this standard regards buildings and other technical features. However, to account for building details, CityGML has drawbacks relative to buildingSmartInternational's Industry Foundation Classes, and as it is only indirectly related to land tenure, so I have left it out here.

UN-Habitat/Global Land Tool Network's Social Tenure Domain Model

is described as a specialization of the LADM. It intends to support the situation in a less formalized society, and therefore aggregates details into a People - Land relationship. The 'Land Tool' of the Global Land Tool Network is a desk-top level system, based on open source software QGIS, and related database and server packages. The Social Tenure Domain Model is concretized into a QGIS-plugin.

ANZLIC/ ICSM : ePlan

The Australian states and territories and New Zealand have prepared a digital protocol for the transfer of cadastral data from surveyors to governmental agencies.
The efforts have been compared both to the LADM in 2011 and to LandInfra in its specification phase. The ePlan conceives, like LandXML, building parts as a sort of land parcel, which is dubbed Building Format Lot

OGC LandInfra SWG : InfraGML

The scope of the LandInfra Conceptual Model is land and civil engineering infrastructure facilities. During the specification process cooperation was maintained with buildingSMART International.
Focus of the LandDivision part of LandInfra is on cadastral survey on location, whether this is in the terrain or in a construction. The focus on the survey of boundaries and their documentation means that recording issues, which LADM accounts for, are out of scope.

Harmonization potentials

Now, where can we make a clever investment of resources, in order to integrate better the efforts that I have described?

We have already heard of the fact that the ISO LADM is to be revised according to ISO's periodical review. My Turkish colleague, Volkan Cagdas with a number of surveying colleagues have made a proposal to extend the LADM with an international information model for property valuation. This information model includes buildings and also building parts. What is realized by too few is, that this modelling is applied also in the conceptual model of LandInfra.

What is missing, therefore, is to make this shared modelling more known, and moreover to address possible inconsistencies.

As regards better integration of the STDM with InfraGML, mention is made of the fact that standards need be tested to convince the user community of its interoperability benefits. It would be obvious to use the technical platform, which is applied by STDM, for testing of InfraGML. This could provide the basis for discussion of a structuring of modules or plug-ins.

My idea is that some modules might be shared between developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while other modules needs be specialized for the specific needs of the society concerned.

Conclusion

This brings me to the conclusion:
Since the World Bank has proposed the development of 'A roadmap towards agreed data and interoperability standards ..', an OGC contribution might include

1.
that OGC - at least when the review process is officially opened - informs the ISO TC 211 of the new LandInfra and InfraGML standards, and engages in the review process

next / 2.
that OGC together with GLNT invite sponsor(s) for an OGC pilot project in the context of an OSGeo Community Project.
Of cause, the mandate of such project needs be specified. I dream of a project which fosters joint development and yet provide applications which are fit for diverse legal/ administrative settings

Thank you