1. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION HDF, EOSDIS, NASA ESE Data Standards Richard Ullman

2. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Agenda ESDIS Status wrt HDF EOSDIS (American Customer Satisfaction Index) NASA Earth Science Standards Endorsement Process

3. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ESDIS Status Launch of Aura (July 25) marks end of development phase of the EOSDIS Core System (ECS). System is now in maintenance. Capability refinements are under the “Synergy” program. –Data enters are now running “Synergy 3” release. Will be transitioning to “Synergy 4” over the next six months. Maintenance of HDF for EOS includes two components –Support of NCSA’s HDF group through a cooperative agreement. –Support of HDF-EOS through ECS maintenance contract Other ESDIS project sponsored HDF-related work will be phased out near the end of calendar year 2004. –http://hdfeos.gsfc.nasa.gov website updateshttp://hdfeos.gsfc.nasa.gov –“SESDA” hdf data usability task –Coordination, outreach and test bed development for HDF integration through CEOS, OGC, ISO organizations.

4. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION HDF-EOS A profile, convention, convenience API, etc for NASA’s Earth Observation System standard data products. –Defines structures for Point, Swath, Grid (Atmospheric Profile, Zonal Table) –Defines specific location for product metadata ODL encoded metadata compliant with FGDC content standards. Maintained by a by L3-Communications under subcontract to Raytheon’s ECS Maintenance and Development contract. Next release expected Dec. 2004 –HDF5-1.6.3 – SZIP 1.2 –New inquiry functions –CEA (Cylindrical Equal Area grid projection – Improved performance in read/write functions

5. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION HDF in NASA Earth Remote Sensing HDF-EOS is format for EOS Standard Products –Landsat 7 (ETM+) –Terra (CERES, MISR, MODIS, ASTER, MOPITT) –Meteor-3M (SAGE III) –Aqua (AIRS, AMSU-A, AMSR-E, CERES, MODIS) –Aura(MLS, TES, HIRDLS, OMI HDF is used by other EOS missions –OrbView 2 (SeaWIFS) –TRMM (CERES, VIRS, TMI, PR) –Quickscat (SeaWinds) –EO-1 (Hyperion, ALI) –ICESat (GLAS) –Calypso Over 3 petabytes of EOSDIS archived data

6. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION HDF-EOS Lessons Definition of a set of data structures as a profile is not sufficient to guarantee interoperability. –Also need definition of content, especially metadata - this is increasingly difficult the wider the disciplines covered. –See AURA DSWG standards and NetCDF CF as examples. –Also need conformance measures - no spec is so clear that it cannot be misinterpreted. Even during life of mission, there must be allowance for technology refresh. –Technology advances affect user expectations. –Well understood concept for hardware - traditionally less recognized for science software and data products. –See OAIS

7. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Discussion topics today Ask the experts –A growing number of software products depend upon the HDF libraries. Are there suggestions for how to better coordinate HDF library releases. –Questions from participants. HDF-GEO? –Last workshop there was strong opinion expressed that there should be some kind of bridge among HDF geographic and geophysical profiles. Can we develop a better sense of what such and “HDF-GEO” might be? Is this the list? HDF-EOS, NetCDF API, HDF-NPOESS What are reasonable expectations for this effort?

8. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION From ESDSWG meeting last week: Why Use a Standard? Good documentation Other projects have reviewed it and found it useful Reusable software sometimes available Potential users can see that standard and software works Not management pressure or peer pressure – just more practical

9. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 2004 EOSDIS Satisfaction Survey

10. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 2004 EOSDIS Satisfaction Survey A measure of customer satisfaction –ESISS and ESSAAC have recommended that NASA focus on measuring the “impact” of our systems and services rather than just the “output” In 2004, NASA used a comprehensive survey to determine the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) for EOSDIS products and services. –ACSI provides a normalized measure of customer satisfaction that allows benchmarking against similar companies and industries. 2004 survey results show that customer satisfaction with EOSDIS compares very favorably with both industry and other government agencies.

11. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Snapshot of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) The # 1 national indicator of customer satisfaction today Compiled by the National Quality Research Institute at the University of Michigan using methodology licensed from the Claes Fornell International (CFI) Group Measures 40 industries and 200 organizations covering 75% of the U.S. Economy –Over 70 U.S. Federal Government agencies have used ACSI to measure more than 120 programs/services CFI’s Advanced methodology quantifiably measures and links satisfaction levels to performance and prioritizes actions for improvement

12. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Survey Background EOSDIS survey was performed by CFI Group through a contract with the Federal Consulting Group (Department of Treasury). Survey questions developed by the DAAC User Services Working Group were tailored to fit the CFI methodology ESDIS provided the CFI Group with 33,251 email addresses from users who had used NASA/EOSDIS products –CFI sent invitations to participate in an online survey to 9,999 randomly selected users 1,056 responses were completed 1,016 surveys were used in the analysis (250 responses were needed for statistically meaningful response).

13. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 75* NASA EOSDIS Aggregate Segment EOSDIS Results The Customer Satisfaction Index for NASA EOSDIS is… The Customer Satisfaction Index score is derived from customer responses to three questions in the survey: –How satisfied are you overall with the products and services provided by the Data Center (79)? –To what extent have the data, products and services provided by the Data Center fallen short of or exceeded your expectations (73)? –How well does the Data Center compare with an ideal provider of scientific data, products and services (71)? This score is four points higher than the 2003 American Customer Satisfaction Index for the Federal Government overall (71). * The confidence interval for ACSI is +/-1.1 for the aggregate at the 95% confidence level.

14. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Score Comparison Current Location 74 67 34% 76 82 83 73 71 69 31% 88 85 72 69 ACSI Customer Support Delivery Product Selection and Order Product Search Product Quality Complaints USA (n=478) Outside the USA (n=577)

15. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Customer Support - Score 84, Impact: 1.0 84 83 82 84 85 87 Customer Support Professionalism Technical knowledge Accuracy of information provided Helpfulness in selecting/finding data or products Helpfulness in correcting a problem Timeliness of response CFI considers EOSDIS to be “World Class” in the area of customer support.

16. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Product Quality - Score 68, Impact: 0.9 68 69 67 68 Product Quality Ease of using the data product in the delivered format Clarity of data product documentation Thoroughness of data product documentation In what format were data or products provided? HDF-EOS49% HDF39% NetCDF 5% Binary14% ASCII12% GeoTIFF19% Other 7% Was documentation… Delivered with the data 44% Pointed to (on a website) 41% Not available 15%

17. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Analysis of Results Product quality is the lowest scoring component (68), and has a relatively high impact (0.9). –All attributes in this area received similar ratings At 84 customer support scores well, and is also high impact (1.0). –There is a significant difference in customer support ratings given by customers within the U.S. (88) compared to those outside the U.S. (82). The components product search, product selection and order are highly correlated. Recent customers are more satisfied, but are also reporting more problems. Percentage of customer complaints is fairly high (32%) when compared to the federal government overall (12%). –Customers may not be calling to complain about a problem, but rather to seek assistance in solving the problem. –90% of respondents who answered the customer complaint questions gave user services’ complaint handling a rating of “6” or above.

18. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION CFI’s Recommendations for Improving ACSI Focus on Product Quality: –Review the type of data product documentation available with each product. Work to improve the clarity and thoroughness of the documentation. –Assess the various data formats and work to improve the usability of each. –Offer a wider variety of data formats. Review the Product Search and Product Selection and Order scores to determine how best to help customers find the data they need: –Due to high correlation, improvements in one area will likely result in improvements in the other. –Simplify the search process; make data products more apparent. –Improve data product descriptions.

19. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Product Format Ease of Use Comparison HDF- EOSHDF Geo- TIFFBinaryASCII Valid Responses270190615344 Mean Valid Score6.767.207.487.027.30 Median Valid Score78878 Standard Deviation2.472.342.032.762.54 95% Confidence Interval0.290.330.510.740.75 % of Users Assigning 8 or More46.7%52.6%55.8%49.0%63.7% The relatively low scoring of HDF-EOS was supported by users’ free text comments.

20. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process

21. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Insights Interoperability does not require homogeneous systems, but rather coordination at the interfaces. Management can judge success based upon program goals rather than dictate solutions. –example: degree of interoperability rather than use of particular data format. Communities of practice have solutions. Published practices that demonstrate benefit can grow … – successful practice in specific community – broader community adoption – community-recognized “standards”

22. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION The ESDSWG Standards Process Modeled on Internet Engineering Task Force “RFC” process and tailored to meet NASA’s circumstances. The standards process provides: –Registers community practice for NASA NASA Earth science data management can rely on standards to achieve highest priority interoperability –Encourages consensus within communities Science investigators are assured that standards contribute to science success in their discipline. –Grows use of common practices among related activities Discipline communities benefit from the expertise gained by others –Documents data systems practices for use by external communities. Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data.

23. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Standards Process Group Strategy Adopt standards at the interfaces, appropriate to given science and drawn from successful practice. –Find specifications with a potentially wide appeal –Draw attention to a much broader audience –Monitor use, promote what works well –Result : Accelerate the evolution and adoption Preferred source of RFC is community nomination. Possible to direct creation of RFC in response to identified needs. Consequence of endorsement –Future NASA data systems component proposals will be judged partly on how well they interoperate using community-identified practices or else justify why departure from community has greater benefit.

24. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Three Step Standards Process Initial Screening Initial review of the RFC Provide RFC submission support Form TWG; set schedule Review of Implementation Community review and input Evaluation and recommendation Review of Operation Community review and input Evaluation and recommendation Proposed STD CommunityCore Draft STD CommunityCore STD CommunityCore RFC CommunityCore

25. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION SPG Review SPG Review and Recommendation SPG Evaluate Implementations and Community Response TWG Evaluate Implementations Stakeholde rs

26. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION What’s in the works DAP 2 standard – used by many in the oceanographic community – basis for the DODS and OpenDAP servers. -- submitted in June as a “Community Standard” –“Request For Comments” on implementation experience distributed October 1, comments due November 12. Precipitation Community – discussing potential science content standards being used to define level 2 & level 3 data –Self identified group of precipitation scientists have identified need and are proposing a draft. Are discussing at IPWG in Monterey. –“The community is establishing de facto standards in this area and that is the best way to deal with this.” FGDC Vegetation Index standard – discussing with potential community members

27. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Ideas from the last ES-DSWG GCMD DIF GeoTIFF NetCDF CF OGC suite

28. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Community Leadership Strong proposals will have: –Leadership to support and use standard –Potential for impact –Potential for approval –Simple standard is better –Potential for spillover to other communities Successful RFCs will have: –At least two implementers –Demonstrated operational benefit –Leadership in generating the RFC –Community willing/able to review

29. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION SPG Contacts Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process Group –http://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/spghttp://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/spg Chairs SPG –Richard Ullman richard.ullman@nasa.govrichard.ullman@nasa.gov –Ming-Hsiang Tsou mtsou@mail.sdsu.edumtsou@mail.sdsu.edu