A GEO Label: Scope of Review Hans-Peter Plag IEEE University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA;

- Questions for the Review - Potential Goals for the Label - STC Plan A GEO Label: Scope of Review

Activity 2: Encourage relevant scientists and technical experts to contribute to GEOSS in a truly participatory way. That will result in two levels of activities, i.e. by creating an environment that is generally attractive for scientists and technical experts, and by specifically targeting relevant groups: 2. (Roadmap 2b) Establishing a “GEO label”. Develop a concept for a “GEO label” related to the scientific relevance, quality, acceptance and societal needs for activities in support of GEOSS as an attractive incentive for involvement of the S&T communities. A draft concept will be proposed in early 2010 liaising with existing major Earth observation data providers. ST Task Definition

Question for the Review Questions: - How to measure scientific relevance, quality, acceptance and societal needs and how to display the results? - What is "an attractive incentive for involvement of the S&T communities"? Should a GEO Label be restricted to be "an attractive incentive for involvement of the S&T communities"? What would GEOSS user want most from a GEO Label? Or Should a GEO Label promote, support, ease the utilization of the societal benefits of GEOSS? What should be the role of a GEO Label in a "user-driven GEOSS"?

Some thoughts on goals for the GEO Label: - Be an attractive incentive for involvement of the S&T communities: - give recognition for contributions (needs not be be available to everybody); - enable credits for providers (attribution); - support forward traceability (usage). - Promote data sharing: - signal data availability and conditions. - Inform users: - increase trustworthiness; - characterize quality; - characterize applicability; - ensure backward traceability (data sources) - Inform providers (and their funders): - Provide information on relevance (meeting user needs); - Provide information on usage. Potential Goals for the Label

Design, Concept, Implementation, and Success of a Label depends on the goals, and these goals need to be well-defined and widely accepted. Potential Goals for the Label My opinion: The Goals for the GEO Label should be agreed upon by the GEO Plenary.

A label requires time to get accepted; once established the key characteristics can not be changed. Cavets A label should be associated with GEO/GEOSS, not a specific aspect. There are many examples of labels that failed.

Design, Concept, Implementation, and Success of a Label depends on the goals, and these goals need to be well-defined and widely accepted. Scope of Review Informing the GEO Plenary about the implications of various potential goals on concept, costs, design, acceptance, impacts of a GEO Label as a basis for decission making. Providing a basis for an informed development of a GEO Label.

Minutes of STC-16: 9) Report on Task ST (H.P. Plag)... The GEO label is being discussed within the GEO Community. One major issue is the coordination of this activity, since there are 2 concurrent EC funded projects (EGIDA, GEOVIQUA) that are addressing labeling. J. Hoffmann reminded that STC did a proposal at the Joint Committees meeting in May, The decision was that STC made a proposal on GEO Label to be presented to the Plenary. J. Hoffmann proposed to continue working on the original proposal based on the draft that H.P. Plag prepared avoiding the preparation of new parallel proposals. S. Minchin pointed out that the paper prepared for GEO Label was substantially driven by political concerns. S. Minchin and S. Marsh suggested to explore some other ways or processes to define a GEO label, perhaps the work conducted through GEOVIQUA and EGIDA could be beneficial. H.P. Plag argued that the proposal would nor be available for the 2011 Plenary. S. Minchin proposed having a discussion paper on GEO label prior the Joint Committees meeting in September, Brief History

Minutes of STC-16: 9) Report on Task ST (H.P. Plag)... Action STC16.07: the STC to prepare a discussion paper prior to the Joint Committees meeting before taken outside this action. Action STC16.08: J. Hoffmann to contact one EC officer to discuss the connections between the work done so far for GEO Label through ST and the EC projects EGIDA and GEOVIQUA. My conclusion from STC-16: - ST should aim for coordination not only with EGIDA and GEOVIQUA but also QA4EO and other activities; - ST should prepare the discussion paper. Since STC-16: - Work on review of exisiting labels; - Coordination with other activities; - Draft proposal for label concepts. Brief History

Activity 2: Encourage scientists and technical experts to contribute to GEOSS 2.2 Roadmap Activity 2b; establishing a “GEO label”: Complementary activity: Eurostars proposal: Framework for the labeling and certification of georeferenced data sets, products, and services: - Core team of three companies (lead: Beyond Sustainability AS, Norway) will establish a service for labeling and certification; - Use cases with participation of major stakeholders in several market segments (governmental agencies, space agencies, service providers, research institutes, private companies - infrastructure, re-insurance,...) - Global participation (Norway, U.K., Germany, France, USA, China,...) - Advisory Board with representatives of key international organizations to ensure wide acceptance Brief History

Activity 2: Encourage scientists and technical experts to contribute to GEOSS 2.2 Roadmap Activity 2b; establishing a “GEO label”: - Status discussed at STC-17 - STC Co-Chairs expect a time line for the GEO Label Work by September 23, A draft GEO label position paper should be available by the Plenary; - GEOVIQUA is conducting a survey and results should be considered; - Draft GEO label proposal should be available early in 2012 either for a possible STC meeting or a meeting of any other relevant body. STC Plan