ADC Meeting ICEO Standards Working Group Steven F. Browdy, Co-Chair ADC Workshop Washington, D.C. September, 2007

ADC Meeting Summary of ISWG Achievements GEOSS Standards and Interoperability Registry made public. –Contributed by IEEE ( –Initial round of enhancements completed. –Demo planned for November at GEO Summit. Earth Observation Portal Study almost complete. –175 portals identified, over 100 portals reviewed. –First draft complete (final report to be submitted to AIP Web Portal Group). EO Standards Survey publicly available. –Gathered some standards information for the standards register. –Found new ways to attract responders, but still have low response rate. –

ADC Meeting Summary of ISWG Achievements Standards Development Organization (SDO) Table –It is an accessible record of organizations responsible for standards relevant to GEOSS. –Consolidation and cleanup has taken place. –Link between SDO table and Standards Survey to be established. Standards Taxonomy prepared for feedback –Sent to MMI (Marine Metadata Initiative) for hosting and feedback. –Being updated for more detail. –Updated no more than once per quarter.

ADC Meeting Standards Taxonomy (Current State) 17 categories identified. Broadly designed. Can be found for review at: – – Each category is defined and given examples.

ADC Meeting Standards Taxonomy (Current State) The current categories are: –Metadata; Data Format; Catalog/Registry Service; –Data Access; Streaming Protocols; Semantics; –Portrayal and Display Service; –Data Transformation Services; QA/QC; Schema; –Modeling, Simulation, or Analytic Processing Service; –Archival; Communications & Telecommunications; –Data Acquisition; Engineering Process; –Development Environments & Software Languages; –Technical Documentation. To provide feedback, go to the Taxonomy Forum at

ADC Meeting Standards Taxonomy (Example Page)

ADC Meeting Standards Taxonomy (Near-Term Goals) Add dimension ??? –Break out broad categories into parent-child relationships –Not necessarily required for each category –e.g. data format  graphics, numerical data, etc. –e.g. metadata  sensor, service, etc. Add more categories based upon SME feedback. Feature it on the standards registry. Make it accessible via XML. Store it in a database table for easy access by registries. Modify and reissue Standards Survey based on new taxonomy.

ADC Meeting Standards Registry (Current State) Backend register populated with > 80 records. Input of proposed additions requires self- registration and manual data entry. Entries to be reviewed by SIF? Current entry form is not optimal.

ADC Meeting Standards Registry (Current State)

ADC Meeting Standards Registry (Near-Term Goals) Interoperability Goals –To have this registry work seamlessly with the services registry. –To have this registry participate in a workflow situation to support operation of the SIF. Usability Goals –To make the UI to the register more user friendly. –To facilitate better searching.

ADC Meeting Standards Registry (Interoperability Goals) Methods to get special arrangements for registered component services (if opted for registration)? –Web service to accept special arrangements from the service registry… –Web service to request special arrangements from the service registry… –Or do it manually until the two registries are synchronized. Thereafter, proper functionality will maintain synchronization. Service registry needs to interoperate, as designed, with the standards registry. –Currently Z39.50 protocol is functional, SOAP to be implemented. –Need to update pick lists at the service registry dynamically. –Need to implement link from the service registry to the standards registry to pre-fill standards entry form, when necessary. –Need to validate, at the service registry, that the special arrangement has been entered successfully at the standards registry.

ADC Meeting Standards Registry (Usability Goals) Implement FAQ, general help, context-sensitive help, and required field notification. Make some content changes for clarity. Add fields for URL / URN of the service that the standard or special arrangement is associated with, when applicable. Add user authentication levels. –Needed to support SIF operation. –Needed to control access to editing capabilities of register entries. Implement workflow to support SIF goals. –Used with the SIF ops procedures for processing and evaluating submitted standards and special arrangements.

ADC Meeting Standards Registry Test-Bed? “The Architecture and Data Committee will provide guidelines for test procedures for test and verification.” –Quoted from 10-year IP Ref Doc in Tactical Guidance draft document. Is a testing infrastructure to validate and accept interoperability arrangements too close to “certification?” –Does GEOSS go down this road? Recent SIF discussions shy away from this. A testing infrastructure can support the SIF, but its applicability is questionable, due to the scope of requirements and resources. –GEOSS-controlled vs. private industry??? –External testing authority??? Some requirements: –Automated testing (primarily). –Regression testing for modifications. –Policy linking results to SIF decisions. –… and a whole host of other requirements. A completely non-trivial task 

ADC Meeting Summary of ISWG Near-Term Goals Achieve interoperability between registries. Enhance Standards Registry. Revise taxonomy and update Standards Survey. Complete EO Portal study and deliver final report. Finish revising SDO table. To Be Achieved ASAP