GEO Task AR-07-02
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Closing Plenary
NCAR Mesa Laboratory
25-26 September 2008
Closing Plenary – 26 September 2008
Start Time
Topic
Speaker
1330
Reports from sessions
(10 min *10)
Session leaders
1430
Break (15 min)
1445
Reports from sessions, continued
Session leaders
1525
Task Planning: communications,
schedule, web presences
George Percivall
1555
General Discussion
All
1700
Closing
Agenda – 25 September
Agenda – 26 September
Thank you!
• NCAR hosting of the Kickoff
– Richard Anthes, Peter Backlund,
Carol Park, Donna Bonnetti
• IEEE for organizing events all week
• OGC acknowledges sponsorship from
– European Commission
– European Space Agency
– USGS
– ERDAS
– Northrop Grumman
Session Leader responsibilities - Thanks!
•
•
•
•
•
Introduce and organize themselves
Create an agenda for the session
Introduce the session at the opening plenary
Lead the session at the kickoff
Present the outcomes to the closing plenary
Beyond the kickoff we will need leaders for the working
groups through March 2009
GEO Task AR-07-02
Architecture Implementation Pilot
• Lead incorporation of contributed
components consistent with the GEOSS
Architecture…
• …using a GEO Web Portal and a GEOSS
Clearinghouse search facility
• …to access services through GEOSS
Interoperability Arrangements
• …support GEOSS Societal Benefit Areas
Slide 7
Pilot Kickoff Objectives
• Begin the Execution Phase of the Pilot
• Refine and develop
– Collaboration and interoperability goals
– Detailed design based on CFP
Architecture.
– User scenarios suitable for demonstration.
• Develop detailed plan and schedule for
the Execution Phase
Why participate in GEOSS AIP?
• Better awareness of community interoperability
efforts
• Better understanding and use of proposed GEOSS
standards
• Standardization of intra- and inter-system data
exchange
• Leveraging and reuse of existing resources through
service-chaining
• Increased value of existing development investments
• Improved resource availability and decision-making
for end users
Slide originally from Shawn McClureCIRA, Colorado State University
AIP-2 Kickoff Sessions
• SBA, Communities of Practice, Scenario Sessions
– Disaster Response
– Climate Change and Biodiversity
– Renewable Energy
– Air Quality and Health
• Transverse Technology sessions:
– Catalogues and Clearinghouse
– Service and Dataset Description
– Data Product Access: service, schema, encoding
– Sensors and Models Access: service, schema, encoding
– Workflow for derived product and alert generation
– Clients: portals and applications clients
– Test Facility for Service Registration
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Disaster Response
Session Results – Work Plan Ahead
Stuart Frye
Ron Lowther
Didier Giacobbo
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Caribbean Flood Team
Northrop Grumman
Spot Image
Session Primary Participants & Presenters
Presented
at Kickoff
Participant
Title
Y
Morris Brill, Michele Mayorga
(NGC)
Northrop Grumman (NGC) Response to GEOSS AIP-II CFP
Y
Stu Frye (NASA)
Caribbean Flood Pilot Sensor Web
Y
Didier Giacobbo (Spot Image)
Spot Image Response to the GEOSS AIP-2 CFP
Y
Jeff de La Beaujardiere (NOAA
IOOS)
NOAA IOOS Data Integration Framework (DIF) Contribution to the
GEO AIP-II
Ken McDonald (NOAA) and Dr.
Liping Di (GMU)
NOAA-NASA GOES-R and GMU CSISS joint efforts for persistent
GOES data services, weather scenarios, Web… services/ workflows
Y
Prof. Natalia Kussul, SRI NASUNSAU (GEO-Ukraine)
Sensor Web for Flood Applications
Y
Satoko H. MIURA and Kengo
AIZAWA (JAXA)
Catalog Server for ALOS data
Y
Steve Del Greco (NCDC)
The Next Generation Weather Radar system
SURA/SCOOP, GoMOOS, and
NIMSAT
Communication of Disasters and Mitigation of Post-Disaster Damage
ICAN (Oregan State U.)
International Coastal Atlas Network (ICAN)
Y
(CNES) CENTRE NATIONAL
D’ETUDES SPATIALES
Disaster Charter Catalog Server for GML-EO Metadata Harvesting and
HMA-compliant Web Services Access
Y
(ERDAS) The Earth to Business
Company
Geospatial Collaboration and Information Sharing Infrastructure for
GEOSS
Session Summary and Way Ahead
• Problems to solve:
– Determine future view to have data/products
available at the end versus just data crunching
– How to cross flow work between SBA and transverse
technology groups
– Work plan and schedule development for the rest of
the AIP-II
Session Summary and Way Ahead
• What is missing and still needed: services, components,
and data/product gaps
– Services and components limited and not fully ready,
have to start and build
– Growing availability of data and product providers for
persistent exemplars—want to start and build
– Complete inventory of the participants components
and services and ensure registration
– Expand participation to cover all disasters not just
floods
Session Summary and Way Ahead
• Paradigm shifts instead of evolutionary development:
– Integration needed to link both spectrums:
• Architecture/technology
• Data provisions
– Some satellites give a continuous global baseline but
others not unless we can get a disaster declared—
work needed for fast response
– International Charter Web Services provision
Session Summary and Way Ahead
• Work plan ahead:
– Not enough time – WG participants need to further
refine cross flow areas and collaboration among
participants to develop work plans ahead
– It’s not all about the demo—must work on transverse
technology, integration providers, capability to
discover archives, rapid data processing…
– We will structure our scenario to provide liaison to
specific transverse technology areas
– Session leads will propose future telecon schedules,
email, list membership and wiki moderation
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Climate Change and Biodiversity
Session Summary
S. Nativi (IP3 Team and CNR),
Gary Geller (IP3 Team and NASA JPL)
GEO AIP-2 Kickoff
September 26th, 2008
Agenda (Thursday, 25th
13:00 – 14:15)
I part: The context
Global Federated Climate and Weather systems
Global Biodiversity systems: GeoBON
D. Middleton (NCAR and WMO)
G. Geller (NASA JPL and IP3
Team) and S. Nativi (CNR and IP3 Team)
Interoperability process: The IP3 demonstrations
S.Nativi (CNR and IP3 Team)
II part: Interoperability Architecture: Some AIP-2 Principal
NOAA NCDC Response
USGS Response
BKG Response
Christina Lief
Doug Norbert
Juergen Walther
III part: AIP-2 Interoperability experiments & shared use scenarios
An interoperability test framework to share resources
Possible collaborative Use scenarios
Conclusions
All
All
All
Session Notes
• 17-20 person attending. A small room !
• Good discussion on the presentations
• There was a general agreement on the need to try to
test resources interoperability in order to enable
common use scenarios and facilitate their registration
in the GEOSS registries
– Interoperability will be pursued by publishing
standard interfaces
– It is possible to submit some “interoperability
arrangements” proposals to SIF
Session Notes
• Interoperability framework for common CC & Bio use scenarios
ACRF access services
NOAA GOSIC
IP3 ENM server
ACRF CMBE
NOAA NEXRAD
IP3 Clearinghouse/
Mediator
NOAA NIDIS
Inter.
Arrangement
USGS services
TOPS
resources
USGS Maps
GBIF resources
Inter.
Standard
GEOSS Registries
GEO-Portals &
Clearinghouse Catalogs
Session Notes
• Major Challenge
– Get Data not only maps
• To deal with data multi-disciplinary specific
models and encodings
• To explicit the disciplinary knowledge: the
mediator role
– Get scientists involved in the use scenarios
definition and implementation
• Start from the IP3 cross-disciplinary process
experience
• Consider the ESRI story board experience
Session Notes
• Some Impediments
– Data policy and security constraints
– Huge amount of heterogeneous data possibly
useful for use scenarios
– Several Communities involved
• Common use scenarios were discussed
– CC impact on Biodiversity for the Polar area
– Vegetation Change
– Protected areas monitoring ?
Schedule
Task
Deadline
To send comments and contributions on use
scenarios
20 Oct
To look at possible scenarios already defined in
other international projects/programmes
20 Nov
To set up formal use scenario(s)
15 Dec
… according to AIP-2 milestones
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Energy SBA Session Report
Ellsworth LeDrew, University of Waterloo, Canada
Thierry Ranchin, Mines ParisTech, France
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Scenario objectives
• Support the SBA Energy by developing
services providing irradiance data among
other parameters
• Simulating the case of the sitting of a solar
power plant.
?
What we have in
hands
Meteorological data
• Access through WSDL to databases:
– Monthly means of solar irradiance
– Min, max and mean values of air temperature at 2 m
– Min, max and mean values of relative humidity at 2 m
– HelioClim 3 time series of irradiance (year 2005)
– Forecast of meteo data at surface for 3 days to 3 hours
– SOLEMI time series irradiance data
– NASA–SSE–HelioClim 1 times series of daily irradiance
• Other types of access
– Real time information meteorological data
• Providers: Mines ParisTech, NCAR, DLR, NASA, Rutherford
Appleton Lab
Geographical Information
• Hydrological information for US from NOAA
• Worldwide Geographical information from
USGS
Tools
• PV assessments through PVGIS Server (JRC)
• Stochastical generation of test datasets for modelling
of PV system (MeteoTest)
• PV Production calculator (MeteoTest)
• Computation of renewable energy parameters
(NASA)
What are the missing
datasets ?
• Inventory is needed for having a worldwide coverage.
Use of GEO Portals and Registry but also other
portals (hydrological network, grids, local demand,
roads, environmental and biodiversity information,
risks and hazards maps, …)
• Help from the Data and Products team
In the Workflow
domain, what do we
need?
Workflow
• Help form the Workflow Team
• Enterprise modeling that will lead to the workflow
design
• Information and Computational Technology views for
linking to GEOSS
• Recommendations for the setting of the service
• Help on technical bottlenecks
AIP-2 Master Schedule
• Within the coming month:
– Planned meeting between Workflow Team,
INCOSE and the Team
• For Nov 2008:
– Key design decisions
– Refined agenda for setting up the service
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Air Quality and Health
Scenario
Stefan Falke, Rudy Husar, Frank Lindsay, David McCabe
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Who does the air quality scenario benefit?
The scenario is quite broad and ambitious,
structured around the needs of three end-users:
-
A policy-maker, needing synthetic assessments of
long-range transport of air pollution
-
An air quality manager, assessing whether an episode
qualifies as an ’exceptional event’ under AQ regulations
Exceptional events such as fires, dust storms are not counted as an
exceedance under AQ regulations. In US, petitioners can use any
applicable data to show exceptionality of an event.
-
The public, needing information on air quality now and tomorrow
Enables individuals, families to adjust plans if air quality is/will be poor;
allows health community, other decision-makers to plan for episodes
Respondents Presenting: ESIP-AQ cluster, DataFed, NASA Giovanni,
EPA AIRNow, VIEWS-TSS, George Mason U., Northrop-Grumman
Air Quality Session
• What we want to do:
SBA goals have been suggested by scenario
Very Broad and Ambitious! Searching for fusion / harmonization of
many types, domains of AQ data
• What we have to work with:
Data and Tools presented by: AIRNow, Northrop Grumman,
VIEWS-TSS, Giovanni
• How to make it all work:
GMU, DataFed:
(service-oriented webservice chaining)
ESIP-AQ cluster
(community AQ portal, catalog, to directly interface w/ GCI)
Air Quality Session
Results of Discussion
• Group will define an approach to populate GCI with
AQ components and services by working with the
ESIP-AQ community catalog
This can happen within the AIP schedule
• Much discussion of how the interface between GCI
and community catalog, will work
The architecture is not final, but the current iteration
needs to be made clearer for stakeholders
Next steps: WE HAVE YOUR EMAIL
Workspace is live on OGC network:
http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/407
Telecons will be set up shortly
AQ SBA will work with transverse tech WGs to clarify
architecture
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Service and Dataset Description (1C)
Session Overview
Josh Lieberman
Doug Nebert
Ted Haberman
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Thursday 1300 - 1430
Session Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overview of metadata requirements and proposed description
strategies for harvesting and search (10 minutes)
Introduction of participants (10 minutes)
ISO Profile metadata (10 minutes)
Use of ISO metadata for service quality and conformance (10 minutes)
Open discussion on content and accessibility of discovery metadata (10
minutes)
Workplan development (20 minutes)
– Task milestones and relation to AIP-2 Master Schedule
– Gaps between present practice and AIP discovery use case
requirements: discernment and resolution
– Impacts and dependencies for work in this thread.
– Potential changes to GEOSS Architecture as a result of this work
Report from Data Product Access session on metadata for deep
content access and service binding. (5 minutes)
Without metadata,
SOA itself would be impossible
Clearinghouse
Community Catalogs
Community Catalogs
Harvests /
Cascades
?
Service / Dataset
Description Metadata
?
?
Service
Service
Instances
Instances
Provisions
Datasets
Datasets
IOC Architecture – (Service) Types
Client Tier
GEO Web
Site
GEOSS
Registries
Components
GEO
GEO
Web
Web
Portal
Portal(s)
Community
Portals
Client
Applications
Business Process Tier
GEOSS
Clearinghouse
Alerts/Feeds
Servers
Portrayal
Servers
Workflow
Management
Infrastructure
Registries
Processing
Servers
Other
Services
Services
Standards
Requirements
Community
Catalogues
Access Tier
GEONETCast
Product
Access
Services
Sensor
Web
Services
Model
Access
Services
Other
Services
Resource Discovery Questions
• Datasets
– Data type / feature type
– Observable(s)
– Coverage in space and
time
– Origin / authority
– Quality / usage
• Services
– Service type
– Accessed content / data
– Functionality / operations
/ options
– Bindings
– Quality
• Catalogs
• Record types
• Holdings / collections
• Supported interfaces
• Queryable properties
• Response types / formats
• Tags / categories /
relations
• Portals / applications
• Functionality
• Client interfaces
• Supported workflow
• Intended users
• Technology platform
Resource Description Relationships
Service Description
Operates on
Provided by
Provision
Operatio
n
Catalog Description
Application Description
Workflow Description
Dataset Description
Collection Description
Product Description
Derivative Description
Discussion Topics
•
•
•
What is scope of this topic?
– Architectural segmentation – no
– Common metadata elements and mechanisms - yes
Essential description elements come not from mandatory minimums but
from essential questions
– Search questions
– Evaluation (understanding) questions
– Selection questions
– Binding questions
ISO 19115
– Rich source of elements for describing and documenting diverse
resources
– Requires profiling and best practice to be useful for GEOSS
– There are extension elements in 19115, but element use has to be
schema-compliant
Discussion Topics, 2
•
•
•
ISO Profile: what is it and what is a profile?
– Profile of ISO 19115 and 19119 (19139 XML encoding) to describe
coupled dataset and service identification
– Application profile of OGC CS/W which defines record types for the
above metadata elements
– (Pending) Mapping of metadata elements to/from ebRIM registry
objects
Leaf catalog problem – what to do with unregistered community catalog
content?
– Should descriptions distinguish between registered and
unregistered?
– How many mappings are needed / desired
Global identities for describing & maintaining resource relationships
– Identity mechanism
– What entities need to be distinguished (e.g. datatype, data product,
data representation, service instance, observable, unit)?
Discussion Topics, 3
• How to define and test conformance?
– Schema conformance
– Link conformance
– Conformance to reality
• Metalevels
– Data vs data collections vs data aggregates/
synopses
– Same levels in metadata (and maybe more levels)
• Versioning and persistence
– 4D / 5D extent description
Workplan Elements for Metadata Thread
• Interact with Scenario Groups to define critical
searches “the catalog questions” and resource types
• Refine of federated resource discovery use cases
• Define common description metadata profiles and
formats
• Agree, support, register metadata exchange
mechanisms
• Agree community catalog collection records to
support discretionary federated queries
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Catalogue and Clearinghouse (2C)
Session Overview
Josh Lieberman
Doug Nebert
Kengo Aizawa
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Session Agenda
•
•
•
•
Introduction to GEOSS Clearinghouse environment (Josh Lieberman, 10 min)
Status of GEOSS Clearinghouse deployments (ESA, Compusult, ESRI, USGS,
5 min each):
– Capabilities for metadata harvest and query distribution - supported
metadata formats, structures, interfaces
– Strategy and requirements for registered catalogues in GEOSS Svc Reg
– Commonality and distinctiveness among deployments
Brief status from community catalogue operators (5-10 minutes each) on:
– Focus of catalogue (audience, # recs, geo extent)
– Registration status with GEOSS Service Registry
– Service protocol used
– Metadata structure(s) used
– Collection representations
– Issues: findability, accessibility, interoperability, currency
Next Steps discussion - What goals and activities on the Clearinghouse and
catalogues for AIP-II? (10min)
Discussion Topics, 1
• Distributed query vs harvest – community catalogs would like to
receive usage stats from Clearinghouse cache (ROI
measurements and feedback)
• Disambiguation – duplication – different metadata for the same
data may be useful, but would like to remove duplicated
metadata
• General issue of collecting and acting on user feedback
• Is Clearinghouse success the discovery of or the access to
content?
• Interoperability – what is the measure of interchange between
clearinghouse instances and discovery clients?
Session Issues, 2
• More interaction in distributed searches – needs harvested
collection metadata from distributed catalogs from which to draw
hints
• Architecture issues
– GEOSS architecture is not segmented by SBA
– Resources are contributed by or pertain to communities
which in turn can be categorized by one or more SBA’s.
– Communities are overlapping and there is no orthogonal
layer or hierarchy of community catalogs which represent all
services. Architecture therefore cannot itself solve recursion
and ambiguity problems in harvesting and distributed search
• To what extent should the clearinghouses go beyond discovery
(to evaluation, selection, binding)?
Workplan Elements for
Catalogue / Clearinghouse WG
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Persistence, completeness, findability
More resources and resource types, e.g. applications, workflows
Minimum interoperability measures, e.g. geoss:Record
Best practices for federated harvest and query
User requirements refinement and added registry /
clearinghouse value
Controlled vocabularies, mediation resources, cross-community
enablement
On-going role for search and discovery in scenarios and
decision support applications
Facilitation of usable OpenSearch / GeoSearch entry points to
the Clearinghouse
Role for publish-subscribe-notify interaction style in
Clearinghouse
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Data Products Access
Session Overview
Hans-Peter Plag, UNR
Glenn Rutledge, NOAA NOMADS
Hervé Caumont, OGC IP Team / ERDAS
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Data Product Access responses
• 23 Primary responses: CIESIN, CNES, EPA, ESA,
GEO-Ukraine, ICAN, ICT4EO, IP3, ISPRA, JAXA,
Mines Paris Tech, NASA World Wind, NOAA IOOS,
NOAA NCDC GOSIC, NOAA NCDC NEXRAD,
NOAA NCDC NIDIS, NOAA NCDC NOMADS,
NOAA/NASA GOES-R and GMU CSISS, Northrop
Grumman, SURA/NIMSAT/GoMOOS, Spot Image,
USGS, Washington Univ St. Louis
• 15 Contributing responses: ACRF, Caribbean
Flood Team, ERDAS, ESIP AQ Cluster, ESRI, ESRI
Canada, NOAA SNAAP
Session Agenda
• Introduction: once the client has discovered a service......”how to
ensure (strong word but) the client application can bind to that
service, i.e use service metadata, and then use data through
integration in a local data model”
• Presentations by primary participants:
– ICAN
– CIESIN
– GALEON
Participation
• ~ 34 participants, mainly representatives of data
providers from governmental agencies, data centers,
universities, private companies, also providers of
infrastructure for data providers and distribution, such
as GEONETCast;
• from a number of countries and disciplines;
• very little end-user representation, if any.
• Most time was spend on presentations.
Analysis of common themes from presentations
• Common features:
– Although all services have a web interface for
access, there is a wide range of approaches,
complexity, data models and concepts.
– Although most presentations emphasized a user
link, it was not clear who these users are.
– Most services seemed to have a limited set of data
formats and projections with little options for users
to request what they need.
• We recommend providing more descriptions
(Capabilities…)
– Promotion of the services does not seem to be a
key focus.
Conclusions
• There are to many different standards that users have to know
in order to access data.
• Too much workload is put on the user (example re-analysis data
versus web page: a user of reanalysis data needs to learn the
variety of formats, while a web user doesn't have to care about
what language was used to encode the web page, the browser
does this for the user.)?
• We need to focus more on this aspect of reducing the workload
for the user.
• Guiding principle: Determine what few things need to be the
same so that everything else can remain different !!!
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Sensors and Models Access
Session Overview
Anwar Vahed, ICT4EO
Luis Bermudez, SURA/NIMSAT/GoMOOS
Don Sullivan Caribbean Flood Team
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Sensors and Models Access:
service, schema, encoding
• Scenarios
– Disaster response for Floods and Fire
• Sensors and Models
– Sensors: EO-1, TRMM, Envisat, MODIS,...
– Models: WRF and CALPUFF, Bluesky,...
• Technologies
– Sensor Web Enablement (SOS, SAS, SPS,...)
– Model output in WCS / WMS / SOS
Agenda
•
◦
•
•
Co-lead introduces the session (2 minutes)
Goal: discuss major issues and prioritize
Self introductions of persons in the session (5 minutes)
Presentations by several primary participants (20
minutes)
• Briefly describe your end-to-end scenario (what we
have now)
• Mayor problems
• Recommend next steps
•
GEO-Ukraine (5 min)
•
VIEWS (5 min)
•
ICT4EO (5 min)
•
Northrop (5 min)
• Open Discussion (60 minutes)
• Priorities for next steps
• Milestones
Issues
• SOS / XML records are too large
– improve 52North, look at: compression, WCS,
CSML, BinaryXML.
• No timely access of satellite imagery for
disaster response
– revise UN charter call methods
• No minimum/uniform description metadata for
models that allow model-model modelobservation comparisons.
– explore other activities (ESML,CMAS,..)
Issues
• No uniform coding and naming conventions for
model metadata values
– Need semantic mediation and conventions
– GO-ESSP (Glenn Rutledge)
• No standard sub-setting of model output
• Specifications too loose for encoding data in
XML
– look for or produce guidance
• Need FUNDING for underserved areas for
instruments to improve ops and cal/val
• Need Intergovernmental/interagency
communication/agreements/harmonization of
objectives
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Workflow
Session Report
Liping Di
Satoshi Sekiguchi
Greg Yetman
GEOSS AIP-2 Kickoff
25-26 September 2008
Session Agenda
• Co-lead introduces the session (5 minutes)
• Self introductions of persons in the session (10 min)
• Presentations by several primary participants (30
min)
– GeoBrain (Liping Di)
– GeoGRID (Satoshi Sekiguchi)
– Population WPS (Greg Yetman)
– Workflow for Floods (Nataliia Kussul)
– Service Orchestration (Jolyon Martin)
• Open Discussion (10 min)
• Establish matrix of service providers and services
• Develop a work plan for the topic: dates and actions
SBA Scenarios & Workflow (revised)
Biodiversity and
Climate
Air Quality
Service-chaining,
Workflows
Renewable Energy
Disaster Response
Approach
• Register early, register often!
• Inventory available services
• Mix & match existing services with scenario
requirements: identify gaps
• Use workflow engines as appropriate for chaining
• Coordinate activities with cross-cutting technology
groups; ensure that solutions fit within the
architecture and support the SBAs
– any shortcomings identified should be brought to
the attention of the appropriate architects
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Client Applications Sessions
Sessions Report
Session Points of Contact:
Nadine Alameh, MobileAps
Hervé Caumont, OGC IP Team / ERDAS
September 26th, 2008
Client Applications
• 5 Primary responses: Compusult, ESRI, ESA;
CNES, ERDAS, NASA World Wind
• 19 Contributing responses: BKG, Caribbean Flood
Team, CIESIN, ESIP AQ Cluster, Mines Paris Tech,
GEO-Ukraine, ICAN, ICT4EO, IP3, ISPRA, NOAA
NCDC GOSIC, NOAA NCDC NEXRAD, NOAA
NCDC NIDIS, NOAA SNAAP, NOAA/NASA GOES-R
and GMU CSISS, Northrop Grumman,
SURA/NIMSAT/GoMOOS, USGS, Washington Univ
St. Louis
Session Agenda (1)
• CA Offerings: Many community portals are emerging to serve
various community practices. How do these applications connect
to GEOSS? How can they leverage the Common Infrastructure
and how can they best contribute their offerings into this global
system without having to reinvent the wheel with each community
or application.
• Presentations by primary participants:
– GEO portals: ESRI, ESA, Compusult
– Communities: NOAA GOSIC, NOAA GeoNETCast,
Washington Univ.
– Reusable components : NASA WorldWind and ERDAS TITAN
Network
Session Agenda (2)
• CA Collaborations: what are the possible collaboration scenarios
in order to achieve cross-domain, value-added applications within
GEOSS ?
• Presentations by primary participants:
– Mines Paris Tech SoDA
Open discussion
• GEO Portal Requirements
• Is GEO branded and
persistent for GEOSS
• Support web presence for all 9
SBAs
• Assurance of connect to CH
• Request for content to fuel
SBA outcomes and visibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community Portals definition
Access to value-added products
Search some catalogs
•
Issue with discovery of community
portals within GEOSS
•
Needs api to clearinghouse
content
Commonalities
Both are GEO Registered
Provides a user interface to Web resources
Need workflow support (user interface for discover and chain)
May provide reusable assets for discovery, viewing, etc (portlets, …)
Outcomes
•
Define the AIP-2 work plan in order to first
– Augment the GCI
• Refine asap the taxonomies useful for registering
• Simplify the user interface
–
Foster System to System interoperations
• Web Portals <> Service Providers (at least provide WFS/WCS
client applications for downloads, plus Map view when portrayal
service on same data is provided)
• Among Web Portals (content sharing)
– Page links, Feeds, … manage URLs, publish feeds or mail
alerts for news on content updates…
• Web Portals <> users :
– Collaborative spaces to support Communities of practice,
or help create cross-domain CoP
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Test Facility for Service Registration
Session Overview
Jolyon Martin, ESA
Doug Nebert, USGS
GEO AIP-2 Kickoff
September 25th, 2008
Test Facility for Service Registration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Primary Participants:
– BKG: ISO Profile conformance test
– ESA: Persistent Testbed resources
– USGS: FGDC service checker
11 participants in the session
Topics:
– Conformance test
– Persistent testbed
– Operations testing
Results:
– Testing resources identified
– Missing resources identified
Action: Register the URLs of the test interfaces
Action: Create a proxy view for service testing
endpoint
Way Forward
– Support to scenarios
Closing Plenary – 26 September 2008
Start Time
Topic
Speaker
1330
Reports from sessions
(10 min *10)
Session leaders
1430
Break (15 min)
1445
Reports from sessions, continued
Session leaders
1525
Task Planning: communications,
schedule, web presences
George Percivall
1555
General Discussion
All
1700
Closing
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
Task Planning: Working Groups,
Communications, schedule, web
presences
Jolyon Martin, ESA
Doug Nebert, USGS
GEO AIP-2 Kickoff
September 25th, 2008
Project Planning topics
•
•
•
•
Working Groups
Communications Plan
Anticipating additional participants
Milestones and schedule
AIP-2 Working Groups (WGs)
• SBA, Communities of Practice, Scenario Sessions
– Disaster Response
– Climate Change and Biodiversity
– Renewable Energy
– Air Quality and Health
• Transverse Technology sessions:
– Clearinghouse, Catalogues, Registries and Metadata
– Access Services: products, sensors, models
– Workflow and Alerts
– Portals and Application Clients
– Test Facility
Communication Plan
• Telecons
– AIP Plenary Telecon – Tuesdays
• Alternating topics: SBAs and Trans Tech
• Beginning 30 September – next Tuesday
– WG telecons as defined by WG leaders
• E-mail list-servers
– One plenary list
– One list per work group
– Hosted by OGC; will send directions on how to
register
• GEO ftp site – may be available for our use?
• Collaborative Workspaces
Cross-linking, Communication:
Collaboration Environment for AIP Pilot
WG Summary,
Uniform look for WGs
Drupal based
More stable
Links to Detail workspace
Workspace for Specific WGs
Wiki Style
More Dynamic
ESIP or Google Groups
2008-07-07 R.Husar
(rhusar@me.wustl.edu)
Collaboration Elements
•
•
•
Mailing Lists
– Plenary
– Working group
OGCNetwork pages
– Group logistics
– Compiled / organized work results
– Managed by WG leads
Google Groups
– Participant-created pages / page content
– Documents uploaded and attached to pages
– Discussion forums (?)
– Participant-organized
OGC Network Example
Wiki Example
Google Groups Example
Anticipating additional participants
• European Commission: DANTE
• GEONETCast
• GEOGrid
Comments
• What is the relationship between SBA and
Transverse Technology work groups?
– SBAs identify needs satisfied by Transverse WGs
– Transverse groups need to formulate questions to
SBA
• How do you cross-grain the SBA scenarios
– Transverse Technology groups
AI Pilot Development Approach
Participation
AR-07-02 Architecture Implementation Pilot
Evolutionary Development Process
Concept
Development
Participation
Call for
Participation
Updates for each step
Architecture
Documentation
Continuous interaction
with external activities
Participation
Kick-off
Workshop
Participation
Development
Activities
Baseline
Operational Baseline and Lessons Learned for next evolutionary spiral
Participation
Persistent
Operations
(AR-07-01)
AIP-2 Schedule – Development Phase
AIP-2 Kickoff Workshop
25-26 September 2008
Key design decisions complete:
Some posted in Best Practice Wiki
November 2008
Scenario storyboards developed
December 2008
Service registration Complete
Scenario Testing complete; Screen captures
Operational baseline defined
AIP-2 results transition to operations
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
1st quarter of 2009
Closing Plenary – 26 September 2008
Start Time
Topic
Speaker
1330
Reports from sessions
(10 min *10)
Session leaders
1430
Break (15 min)
1445
Reports from sessions, continued
Session leaders
1525
Task Planning: communications,
schedule, web presences
George Percivall
1555
General Discussion
All
1700
Closing