1. Session #1C Trilateral Pilot
Joshua Lieberman
Open Geospatial Consortium

2. Scenario Issues
There is a matrix of scenario theme and geographic area
Should themes cross geography or be distinct by theme and geography? Good direction to evolve, but a challenge.
Data availability usually has to drive scenario development
Iterative process of data mining and scenario development
Social benefit areas tend to look like silos and do not encourage cross-cutting connections.
How can EO include society and population? Need to further develop human EO. E.g. there is more animal / plant species distribution data than human habitation data.
Remotely sensed analogues for local data are unavoidable but need to be carefully interpreted. How do we describe quality and usefulness in such datasets. We should be able to map these meta-attributes as well.
Scenarios should “work” but should also point out gaps and problems. E.g. oil spill impact can be analyzed “here” but not enough data exist “there”.

3. Scenario Issues II
Should delineate the scenario audiences, e.g. policy level versus technical level versus public audience, may require separate messages.
Axes of scenario differentiation:
Region - e.g. Africa, Polar region
Event theme - e.g. oil spill, climate change, wildland fire
Application - e.g. humanitarian relief, change detection
Time scale - e.g. short-term, long-term
Societal Benefit Area? - harder to characterize a scenario in this way.
Three proposed work items:
Central Africa scenario - humanitarian relief application, event theme TBD
JRC - looking more at long-term ecosystem impacts in Africa. Harder to define a humanitarian aspect, but perhaps the ecological impact of humanitarian relief events (migration, etc.)
Polar scenario - event theme of climate change / biodiversity, application TBD by GeoNorth.
Architecture and Clearinghouse development, population, and maintenance.
Scenario process has the potential to drive development of persistent services which have longer term usefulness, e.g. “Africa Observatory”

4. Scenario Issues III
How do we faithfully show “discovery” in the scenarios? Show / map results of a number of discovery/query approaches. Example: show Clearinghouse queries (across a variety of catalog sources and protocols) versus individual catalog queries.
Suggested that we propagate this changed discovery to the resulting decision support and therefore resulting decisions. Show metadata criteria for selection / suitability of data to go into decision support.
How does dissemination fit into the scenarios? Collaboration? Where does GeoNetcast fit in?

5. Session 3A: Catalog Services and Metadata Models
Doug Nebert, Joshua Lieberman, Jolyon Martin
USGS, OGC, ESA

6. Discussion
Lifecycle and currency - seems to be another form of registry metadata. Internal timestamps may be hard to interpret.
For update currency, a “push” in the form of GeoRSS items may be useful.
Should there be one or more “GEOSS Recordtypes”?
Over next three months, does the clearinghouse need to customize queries to each community catalog, e.g. for time? This is obviously not scalable over the long term.
Clearinghouse workplan item: register catalogs and start evaluating how likely scenario queries need to be constructed against those catalogs - are there query “families” or (worst case) is there a unique query / protocol for each catalog?
BODC Vocabulary Service (SKOS interface) might be useful in query expansion for topics.
Official gazetteer? E.g. GNS, GNIS, Geonames.org, Alexandria?

7. Significant Queryables and Returnables
Time period of data validity
Time period of collection
Resource type
Full text
Geographic Extent
Topic categories / ISO terms
Title
Creator
Organization
Language
Scale / resolution
Metalevel (collection, granule)
Classification
Processed state (ortho, pansharpened, etc.)
Identifier
Owner-defined identifier
Resource locator
Full description locator
Quality
Description
Abstract
Copyright / Use constraints
Source
Last update