Presentation on theme: "Workshop day 2, pm. Communications Develop vocabulary – Resource – Interoperability – Service Tie into observables ontology effort."— Presentation transcript:
Workshop day 2, pm
Communications Develop vocabulary – Resource – Interoperability – Service Tie into observables ontology effort
BP wiki – SIF increase awareness – Earthobs.org not really helpful for discovering how to do things – Only proven, established practices or also for disseminating recommended guidelines – Many other wikis – Critical that it happens – Evaluation by ADC, when/how to think about alternatives – Why not used? motivation to contribute. Lack of awareness – Really outreach issue, just needs to be on web somewhere, need people blogging about the entries – MMI found difficult to get participation – Critical mass required – Access issues, contributors may not want public access Visualizing tools from Japan (DIAS) can harvest and display from a wiki
BP continued Idea behind GEOSS registries is to collect basic info with links to resources. Lightweight glue objects Need to promote Richness results BP entry just link to journal paper? Crawling/mining to get content Already have lots of potential content from AIP – Say it’s required part of participation - talk to George – Tie to demos Forum to discuss issues regarding becoming GEOSS compliant GEO Tasks also asked to contribute: what needs to be known to other communities about how you do things
Regional Teams Flow up what’s working Improve the catalog for the tools, not humans Humans need BP Are we advancing interoperability through SIF activities? How we communicate Marketing for mini-GEO successes – Social networking
Good to point what didn’t work as well - BPW Problems with implementing stds – SIR – Networking with users/implementers (blogs - searchable, ) Euro SIF RT – A resource for local implementers – Ensure disciplinary views are considered, contact w/ disparate contributors & users – Must deal with new requirements, chance to get close to the process, learn
Comment from Paul SIR review process: approval part is trivial. The review is more important to identify duplicates, what the latest version is, discover open issues already identified by the SDO. Find examples of particular interoperability for outreach. Showcases. Entry need to be checked so that the registry works and returns valid information (once the uptake of registry use takes off). It is another marketing failure that the focus of the discussion turns into an issue of approval polemics.
Contact CoPs – More ad hoc, transverse – Either participate or monitor SIF telecons – What’s the benefit to them? – Reporting: template for participation, are there stds, BPs they can contribute, make it easy SBAs – Find participants in each SBA and engage AIP, DSTF (already have connections)
Virtual constellations (CEOS) – have SBA/CoP focus, have scientist leads – Data and services specific EuroGEOSS – Three thematic areas: biodiv, drought, forestry – Queried these for stds, result not so encouraging, e.g. inadequate metadata levels – Lack adequate guidance – Msg to SIF: be cautious about what you get back Cultural problem, no disagreement on advantages of interoperabilty – Involving CoPs means interaction, hand holding, facilitation, tool development – SIF find out what stds they’re using, work with them, get on w/ processes – engagement, connect people committed to makign this work and people who have resources to contirbute
Consultation to CoPs IGOS-P themes Backward links – services that utilize given standard – Point back to operator – By permission, not tech support Matching people who are interested in making things happen Publish cost/benefit analysis of using standards, success stories, ROI in 1-pagers, for mgmt consumption – Focus on satisfying mission reqs., not
Standards evaulation: mismatch on whether they get used
We need to get smart on what the CoPs are doing and what their standards-related needs/reqs are, both the ones they know about and the ones they haven't yet been able to articulate... that is the kind of outreach the SIF should start doing. Of course, finding the time to do this is troublesome... Maybe we find a couple of suckers, er, volunteers to get "assigned" to a CoP/SBA, or even a single organization participating in GEOSS, to start the outreach process?
Stefan Falke (atmos comp. portal lead) Lynn Olsen (LSI portal lead) Everyone in the room commits to posting something on BPWiki within a month Contact QA4EO for submission to BPwiki
Collab and coop SDOS: – ISO/TC211 – OGC – IEEE-SA NASA SPG IOOS DMAC OASIS IODE of UNESCO – JASON TO INVESTIGATE SeaDataNet INSPIRE drafting teams Paul Smits
General comments How can quality measures be linked to components? – Submitter has to understand how to register service so impt info captured Other way than AIP to provide more prototypes? Communities who which to share stds. Contacts? – IP3 – Open source call for GEOSS, get people involved, fill gaps, build tools? – Who is using CWS, link implements to developers?
Providers don’t necessarily want to read stds specs. SIR entries to point to known tools, ref. impl. – Preferable to test framework? “I want to publish this kind of data for this community, and I don’t want to read stds spec. Do I need to read JPEG spec to use it?” One focus of water cluster is getting tools in front of decision makers Tools can include xlst, harvesters, reasoners – Specify type of license Visualization, presentation – function of portals, assistance for analysts
Universal GEOSS tool, able to access any kind of data and display Tools should be registered, for use in service chains Google maps/earth as display platform. With WMS I/F can easily display geospat info Buying into infrastructure opens up world of possibilities Google indexing of information content – how to employ in GEOSS, can do better than Google by specifying index terms. Specific say of presenting EO data.
Converge on data format allows tools to code for What formats do tools/hardware support? Format irrelevant if service can provide as required
Summary Key points, outcomes SIF very appricaitive of participants Two approaches, – Work with SIR/GCI – Work w/ positive deviants – Reevaluate focus after some period Improve marketing and outreach – SIF needs to product documentation, guides – Increase interaction, educate – How to use what’s there
Highlight success quickly to deter skeptics and concentrate on putting the layer qualities in later AIP is key to process of identifying successes, issues Input to BPWiki Stds taxonomy – review, uptake Architecture and governance: ask the ADC for more authority? Partnering w/ Smithsonian, etc. focus on inter-disciplinary standards