1. © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc. OGC Web Services Phase 2 Bidders Conference 18 December 2003

2. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.2 Agenda RFQ Overview –Requirements –Roles you can play –How to respond –Evaluation criteria GeoScout additions Submitted Questions

3. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.3 RFQ Overview - Requirements Common Architecture –Develop implementations of OGC services for SOAP/WSDL/UDDI –Harmonize RIM, SIM, and Capabilities (Tier 2) Information Interoperability –Develop tools to generate Application Schema from GML Schema –Develop Application Schemas for NGA products –Demonstrate GML level 0 support in WFS –Develop an integrated client –Continue work on WFS support for schema translation (Tier 2) –Investigate schema repositories in support of schema transform (Tier 2)

4. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.4 RFQ Overview - Requirements Image Handling/Decision Support –Develop a schema for Image Metadata –Enhance Image Archive Server to support image metadata –Develop a decision support client –Develop Image Processing Services –Demonstrate Chaining and Orchestration of the above services Technical Baseline Maturation –Compliance test suites for WFS, CS-W, and WCS –Compliance test suites for other services and GML (Tier 2) Open Location Services –Harmonize ADTs with GML 3.0 –Enhance Existing OLS Services (Tier 2) –Enable SOAP messaging (Tier 2) –Enable seamless indoor/outdoor location services (Tier 2) –Add Tracking and Traffic services (Tier 2)

5. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.5 RFQ Overview - Roles You Can Play  Software developer of one or more software components and/or tools  SCOTS developer extending an existing product to take advantage of the interfaces and schemas developed through OWS-2  Information Engineer supporting schema development and maturation  Developer of demonstrations and tests of the implemented software components Provider of data, personnel, software, hardware, or facilities that will contribute to the overall success of the initiative.

6. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.6 RFQ Overview - How to Respond Technical Volume –Cover page –Overview (Not to exceed two pages; will not contribute to technical evaluation) –Proposed contribution (Basis for Technical Evaluation) –Common Architecture (Not to exceed seven pages) –Technical Baseline Maturation (Not to exceed seven pages) –Image Handling Service/Decision Support (Not to exceed seven pages) –Information Interoperability (Not to exceed seven pages) –OpenLS™ (Not to exceed seven pages) –Proposed contribution cross referenced to WBS (Contributes to Management Evaluation)

7. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.7 RFQ Overview - How to Respond Cost Volume (Not to exceed seven pages) –Level of Effort –Facilities –Hardware –Software –SCOTS or Standards-based Open Source Maturation Plan (Not to exceed 2 pages) –Cost sharing request (Excel template for reporting costs is archived with the RFQ) –In Kind contributions (Excel template for reporting in-kind contributions is archived with the RFQ) Deliver by 1700 EST (2200 UTC) 9 January 2004 to techdesk@opengis,org

8. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.8 RFQ Overview - Evaluation Criteria Technical –Requirements are addressed –Response shows reasonable technical approach that supports accomplishing requirements –Creativity and originality –Appears implementable –Is relevant to initiative goals Management –Adheres and addresses Work Breakdown Structure –Willingness to work in collaborative environment –Achieves Sponsor goal of enhancing availability of SCOTS or standards- based open source products in the market place Cost –Cost-share request is reasonable for proposed effort –In-kind contribution is of value to initiative

9. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.9 GeoScout Additions Negotiations with the GeoScout program are still underway Primary objectives are: –Develop application schemas for NGA products and the tools to create and validate those schemas –Enhancement of SCOTS products to store and retrieve NGA data products (using the above schemas) to/from a WFS –Enhancement of SCOTS products to store and disseminate NGA data using the WFS interface Possible collateral impacts: –Enhancement of compliance test tools for WFS and CS-W –Enhancement of SCOTS products to enable discovery of stored NGA data using the CS-W interface

10. © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc. Submitted Questions

11. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.11 Question 1 of 18 Q) The "Technical Baseline Maturation" proposes that a number of OGC specs be updated to a new (minor) version. In the discussion of the topic in Annex B clause 3.3 the focus is entirely on Compliance Testing. Are any other activities concerning revision of these specifications likely to attract funding? We have in mind –update of WFS to support GML 3 –update of WFS to clarify scope, in particular wrt related specs WOS and WCS A) The sponsor funding for TBM is focused on the development of compliance test suites. Funding for specification updates is provided in other threads. WFS updates for GML 3.0, for example, are funded under the Information Interoperability thread. The task of clarifying the relationship between specifications is not funded. The TC is an appropriate forum to address this issue.

12. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.12 Question 2 of 18 Q) Under the TBM/CITE heading is included "GML3 schema and instance validation capability". I get the impression that the focus is on development of specific tools, which test for GML validity according to the rules in the GML spec. I guess the desire is to make that as simple, rule-driven and automated as possible. A) Correct - the focus of this effort is to develop the tools for validating GML3 application schemas.

13. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.13 Question 3 of 18 We expect there to be an important overlap with topics from the Information Interoperability thread: in particular –the development of GML application schemas, and –the semantic repository. In fact, we would suggest that the latter is in fact the key challenge in this whole area. It is relatively straightforward to knock up a GML application schema representing a feature-type catalogue if you have a (small) finite set of well-modelled feature types mandated by a single governing agency (NIMA). But out in the more general world of "information communities" the process of developing the feature catalogue is more tortuous (and torturous). It will almost certainly be necessary to be able to deal with synonyms, multiple classifications of the same feature types, and possibly multiple representations, both structurally and physically.

14. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.14 Question 3 (cont.) Q) The RFQ appears to acknowledge the importance of all this (Annex B clause 3.4.1.2.4) but unfortunately the sponsors appear to still be shy, since it is a tier 2 topic. Is there any chance that this might change? A) We have not had any success in recruiting sponsors for semantic repositories. We will continue to pursue sponsors for this work item. In-kind contributions and/or background information would help.

15. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.15 Question 4 of 18 Q) I had some input into OLS in the late stages - helping the team adapt one of their proposed schemas to make it something that was close to a formal profile of GML. Does this have a relationship with the proposed GML 3.0/ADT harmonization task? A) Yes, the objective of this task is to further harmonize the OpenLS ADTs and GML 3.0.

16. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.16 Question 5 of 18 Q) IH4DS - Are you looking for WCS/WOS/WFS/WMS service implementations of Image archives, or IE and DSS clients only? A) Yes, but we expect not to fund these much, if at all, we instead expect to focus the funding on the clients/chaining side.

17. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.17 Question 6 of 18 Q) Is supply of relevant (high-resolution) imagery that covers the use- case(s) required, and can that be considered as an in-kind contribution? A) Yes, in-kind contributions of imagery or any relevant data is always welcome. It is even better if the imagery can be made available to participants from an implementation of IAS interfaces.

18. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.18 Question 7 of 18 Q) What tasks and activities are expected for the CS/W Technical Baseline Maturation? A) The funded TBM activities for CS-W are limited to the development of a compliance test suite. In addition, the Information Interoperability task is funding an integrated client reference implementation that includes a CS-W client.

19. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.19 Question 8 of 18 Q) Will the next major releases of the specs have the common architecture in them? How does this feed into future RI's? A) The Common Architecture task will generate Change Requests for the effected specifications. When and if these changes are incorporated into the specs is up to the respective Revision Working Groups. The update of the next major releases is up to the RWGs. If OWS-2 informs the RWGs, then that is goodness. The RIs should track the next major releases, but there will not be a focus on that here (with the exceptions noted later in this briefing)

20. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.20 Question 9 of 18 Q) What is the RI strategy of OWS-2 - the same as in CITE? A) OWS-2 will build on and continue the processes, technologies, and strategies developed through CITE.

21. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.21 Question 10 of 18 Q) Are the processes of compliance testing from CITE going to be built in the OWS-2 RI thread? A) OWS-2 will build on and continue the processes, technologies, and strategies developed through CITE.

22. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.22 Question 11 of 18 Q) Regarding Catalog Services: on which Specification/Application Profile will the Reference Implementation be based? Assumedly this is Catalog 2.0 - for a RI an application profile would still be needed (Web and/or Z39.50?). A) The Catalog Services reference implementation will be based on the Web profile of the Catalog Services 2.0 specification. We anticipate that the specification will be approved in time for the related OWS-2 activities.

23. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.23 Question 12 of 18 Q) On which specification will the WFS RI be based? For version 1.0 an RI already exists - new versions are not available yet. A) Web Feature Service reference implementation will be based on the Web Feature Service 1.1 specification. We anticipate that the specification will be approved in time for the related OWS-2 activities.

24. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.24 Question 13 of 18 Q) Will a WMS RI based on WMS 1.2 be included in the scope of OWS-2? A) An reference implementation of WMS 1.2 is included in OWS-2 as a Tier-2 (unfunded) activity.

25. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.25 Question 14 of 18 Q) What exactly is the status of use cases described in the RFQ? When reading ANNEX C, chapter 2.3., it seems to me, that we will develop use cases during the kick-off meeting. On the other hand, when writing the proposal, we have to reflect the requirements coming from uses cases already described in the RFQ. The question is: How obligatory are uses cases in the RFQ? A) Use cases and scenarios are included in the RFQ to provide insight into the operational context for this initiative. They should be considered informative, but not normative.

26. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.26 Question 15 of 18 Q) What exactly is the difference between a Statement Of Work (SOW) and a Statement Of Participation (SOP)? When do we have to sign a SOP or a SOW? A) A Statement of Work governs the work performed by participants who will receive funding for their work. A Statement of Participation governs the work performed by in-kind participants. Both documents establish an understanding of the work to be performed. An SOW establishes the terms and conditions for financial reimbursement as well.

27. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.27 Question 16 of 18 Q) In http://www.opengis.org/initiatives/?iid=7 under "technical baseline maturation" we found: "Catalog Services will be prototyped in vendors` standards-based commercial off-the-shelf (SCOTS) product offerings.". This contrasts to other statements speaking about "Open Source Reference Implementation". Does this result from the uncertainty if the WCAS 2.0 Specification will be finished up to the beginning of the testbed? A) The RFQ is the authoritative statement of the scope of the OWS-2 initiative. The description on the web site pre-dated the RFQ and was not an accurate description of the final effort as defined by the sponsors. This description has been updated. Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy.

28. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.28 Question 17 of 18 Q) Catalog Service is a Tier-1 requirement, meaning that cost-share funding is available. Is this accepted also for the specification/implementation of WCAS 2.0 or only for compliance testing? A) The Technical Baseline Maturation funding for Catalog Services is limited to the development of the compliance test suite for the Web profile of the Catalog Services specification version 2.0.

29. Helping the World to Communicate Geographically © 2003, Open GIS Consortium, Inc.29 Question 18 of 18 Q) The RFQ will indicate elements of the Technical Baseline that require work within the testbed either on the specification itself. Is it required to work simultaneously on compliance testing? A) It is not required that participants that work on specification development also work on compliance testing. We will be staging the spec development and compliance testing efforts so that developers who wish to support compliance testing will not have to do both at the same time.