TransXML Survey and Scoping Study NCHRP Project 20-07 Task 295 (2011)

Frances Harrison

Spy Pond Partners, LLC

TransXML Initial Scope

2

Study Objectives

3

• Determine current use and support for TransXML and other standard, non-proprietary XML formats for data exchange

• Determine need/support for extensions or modifications to existing TransXML schema based on experience to date

• Identify priority areas for new common data schema based on opportunities for reduction in duplicate data entry or enhanced information sharing within and across organizations

• Suggestions for new industry standard formats to facilitate data exchange

• August/September 2011• Online survey distributed via email to:

– AASHTO Subcommittee on Information Systems– AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning– Four Highway Engineering Exchange Program (HEEP) area

officers (with requests to distribute to HEEP members)– Attendee roster for the most recent GIS-T conference– Community members registered on the TransXML website– TRB Data Section committee chairs (with requests to distribute to

members and friends)– Individuals at selected engineering firms and software vendors

Data Collection Approach

4

• 130 complete responses

• 38 of 50 states represented

• Individuals from planning, design, construction, operations, safety and maintenance

Survey Respondents

5

• Over half of respondents indicated some familiarity with TransXML

• One third of respondents had never heard of TransXML

• Only 15 of the 130 respondents indicated that they had evaluated and/or used TransXML

Awareness of TransXML

6

• Organizations had used or evaluated the following TransXML formats:– TransXML - Bridge Design and Analysis (5)– TransXML/LandXML – Geometry Roadway Design (7)– TransXML – Design Project (pay items) or aecXML (4)– TransXML – Area Design Features (GIS to CAD transfer) (3)– TransXML – Bid Package (4)– TransXML – Construction Progress (1)– TransXML – Project Construction Status (1)– TransXML – Bridge Design and Analysis (2)

Use of TransXML

7

• 58% of respondents reported using either common XML formats or customized formats for their agency

• Remaining respondents were not using XML for data exchange or weren’t sure

Use of Data Exchange Formats

8

• NYSDOT automated steel bridge design and detailing functions using LandXML adapted with custom elements

• Bentley Systems developed PermitXML based on OS/OW system implementations in 20 US states and 1 Canadian province

• Minnesota DOT used PayrollXML(Infotech) for construction contractors submitting standard payroll information into Trns*port

XML Usage Examples

9

• Opportunities for gaining efficiencies through use of common data exchange formats (respondents asked to assign high/medium/low rating to 12 options):– Sharing highway or asset inventory information among systems

(60% high)– Bringing highway design data into inventory and asset management

software (55% high)– Sharing traffic data among systems (50% high)– Sharing highway alignment data across different design software

packages (45% high)– Sharing crash data among systems (45% high)– Sharing utility and right of way data among systems (44% high)

Opportunities and Priorities for New Data Exchange Formats

10

• Respondents suggested the following other businesses areas for TransXML expansion:– Pavement Management (61%)– Maintenance Management (56%)– Bridge Management (51%)– Traffic Operations/ITS (51%)

Other Opportunities for Expansion

11

Candidate Future Schemas for TransXML

12

(25) Pavement Deflection Data

Data Content: Pavement Deflection measurements and associated metadata

Data Exchanges: Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Equipment to Analysis Software

Action: Develop new schema, drawing upon data structures and standards identified in: LTPP, HPMS, AASHTO Maintenance Manual, HPMS, AASHTO PP37-04. This would build upon the Road Network and Linear Referencing TransXML schemas.

Comments: While there are multiple producers and consumers of FWD data (Ref: NCHRP Synthesis 381), the PDDX standard is already in place and being updated for compatibility with DARWIN ME; FWD converters already exist to translate to PDDX format - need to assess benefit of establishing XML schema based on PDDX - may not be sufficient incentives to switch to XML.

Category: 2 Adapt Existing Schema

Sample TransXML Expansion Area

13

• Major barriers that limited agencies’ adoption of common data formats, included:– Lack of awareness of existing formats and how to implement them

(70%)– Too costly to retrofit systems (56%)– Common data formats are not compatible with those in use (46%)– Other:

• Vendor application issues and incompatibilities across vendors

• TransXML complexity makes it difficult to justify the investment

• Resistance to standardization

• Lack of resources and stovepipe systems make integration costly

Barriers to Adoption

14

• Lack of awareness and understanding of TransXML– Absence of marketing and outreach– Challenges of communicating technical concepts– Survey targeted a broader group then the original project

• Need additional education about existing schemas • Interest in expanding TransXML into other areas• DOTs committed to using XML technology (75% of

agencies)• Respondents suggested a list of XML and non-XML

schema that could be integrated with TransXML

Conclusions

15

• http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(295)_FR.pdf

Link to Report

16