1293days since
Demo Capture

Recent site activity

DH Telecon: June 15, 2010

posted Mar 29, 2010, 8:39 PM by Joshua Lieberman   [ updated Jun 28, 2010, 6:19 AM by Hervé Caumont ]
Telecon summary

  • DH Goal is convergence to harmonized set of standards :
  • DH approach includes to review and characterize contents of GEO registries :
    • Help the DA-09-01b GEO Task to understand the content of the CSR
    • Hervé to contact Ken
  • DH aims at developping a community catalog of satellite data products
    • Hervé will ask Ken if Yonsook Enlo / NASA  could be our PoC with regard to this goal
  • DH next steps & opportunities
    • Pragmatic approach based on synergies from AIP-3 participants mostly envisionned
    • Steve will initiate a discussion on the DH mailing list, on some potential synergies, e.g. PML and Aston responses…

Booked for one hour, starting at 13:00 UTC, Wednesday 16th of June 2010.

Check your local time for this meeting.


Agenda
1.  Roundtable
2.  Recap of Data Harmonization WG action items
3.  Review of potential cross-WG synergies
4.  Other topics


Introduction:

Many of us did not attend to the AIP-3 kick-off in Frascati, March’10, so here is the summary :
http://sites.google.com/a/aip3.ogcnetwork.net/home/home/aip-3-kickoff/data-harmonization
As WG co-lead, I will update and maintain the Working Group page and information here :
http://sites.google.com/a/aip3.ogcnetwork.net/home/home/data-harmonization

Scoping (tentative):

Last month (13-15 May 2010) at the GEO Work Plan Symposium in Pretoria, South Africa,
Ken McDonald (NOAA) gave a presentation on GEO Task DA-09-01b « Data, Metadata and Products Harmonisation »
ftp://ftp.earthobservations.org/201005_Work_Plan_Symposium/Presentations/DA-09-01b_2010_GEO_WPS.pdf
From this presentation, here are 4 main highlights for comments and feedback (which I initiate inline):

1)      DH Goal is convergence to harmonized set of standards

· Many AIP-3 contributions could feed in here, so we shall discuss this on the list (also coordinate with the SIF, ...)
· For example, from the data provider perspective, PML is a Data & Service provider for ocean and environmental monitoring. PML Response underlines interest to develop open-standards approaches to quantitatively combine and compare the datasets.

2)      DH approach includes to review and characterize contents of GEO registries

· Notably, CSIRO contribution aims at the development of service registries, especially those relating to data provenance.
· This work can be related in the Pilot to contributions from Data Providers like PML seeking for standards-support of their activities. Also to the service chain modeling, taking into account the uncertainties injected after data manipulations.

3)      DH aims at developping a community catalog of satellite data products

· Satellite data « Information model » shall be compared/contrasted with other harmonisation efforts
· AIP-3 contribution from « GIGAS Data » will shortly provide input in this regard (report to be published on the GEOSS Best Practices Wiki)
· Here we see CEOS Response offering systems engineering services to benefit the development of the GEO portals, supporting the usage of satellite sensor coverage areas and coincident scene images for multiple sensors.

4)      DH next steps & opportunities

· There is a lack of a set of guidelines for data and service providers. From this perspective, AIP-3 scenarios may benefit from DH WG participants.
· Munster University / IFGI Response, is contributing an error-aware, automatic air quality interpolation service related to UncertWeb project.
· Also, from the Aston University,a demonstration of chaining of uncertainty aware services using BPEL and UncertML is contributed, illustrating an uncertainty-enabled pressure correction chain.
· QA4EO Response , provide the needed guidance to any GEOSS element or SBA that needs to improve its data quality assurance strategy

 

Building on proposals :

There is an identified need for tools and and standards handling information lifecycle in a Data Sharing environment like GEOSS.
Especially, extractions, processings or manipulations of data leads to datasets with limited accuracy. Ignoring this accuracy may lead to ill-supported decisions in case this accuracy is low.
The emerging UncertML standard relates to dealing with explicitly quantified uncertainties in data and service chains.
Taking uncertainties into account by explicitly quantifying data accuracies and propagating them through data processing operations is becoming a clear requirement for Data Harmonization.

Also, making progress towards a ‘Common Foundation’ between GEOSS and INSPIRE will be crucial.
Approaches to reconcile the ‘geophysical observations’ viewpoint with the ‘geographic features’ viewpoint are under developement.
INSPIRE has adopted a ‘geographic features’ approach to its conceptual modelling, http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/D2.5_v3.2.pdf (cf. ISO 19109 General Feature Model)
INSPIRE’s « General Feature Model » is applied to numerous environmental themes of relevance to GEOSS SBAs, including some themes that more traditionally would adopt the ‘geophysical observations’ viewpoint: atmospheric conditions, meteorological geographic features, orthoimagery, oceanographic geographical features, etc…
Work under the AIP-3 Pilot process is a key instrument for having the INSPIRE data specifications framework apply equally to satellite and other Earth-observation data.

Conclusions :

So, this counts up to 7 the identified AIP-3 Data Harmonization WG contributions.
This is shaping a very interesting domain area altogether.
The following topics of interest could be addressed in the curse of the Pilot, depending on contributors agenda and resources:
 - Importance of registers and feature catalogues, publishing to registers and registry managements mechanisms ;
 - Controlled vocabularies of geophysical parameters: relationship to features and coverages ;
 - Feature models and Features properties management through Data Sharing lifecycles ;
 - Standards for Data provenance management, and for uncertainty management ; Quality assurance methods ;

 



Comments