1295days since
Demo Capture

Recent site activity

June 7 Telecon

posted Jun 4, 2010, 5:35 AM by Joshua Lieberman   [ updated Jun 7, 2010, 8:13 AM ]

Attending:

Josh Lieberman, Greg Yetman, Steve Browdy, Erin Robinson, Doug Nebert


Agenda:


  • GEOSS Common Record
  • Processing & Workflow use case
  • Data quality propagation
  • Additional use cases: Sensor Tasking, Notification, Semantics
  • Other issues

Discussion:

  1. Data Quality - Relevance of QA4EO documents
  2. Aspects of Data Quality
    1. Data Quality Status
    2. Data Quality methodology
    3. Measures of uncertainty
    4. Measures of suitability for applications
    5. Data Quality indicator (index for representative applications)
    6. Recommendations (3rd party, citations, and cross-calibration)
  3. GEOSS Common Record implications:
    1. Queryable status - what has been done, but not the result.
    2. Returnable indicator - not yet a consensus on whether this is generally feasible.
    3. Accessible documentation, e.g. uncertainties and derivation, that we hope a more detailed ISO framework will be developed for.
  4. Community practices?
    1. There are QA/QC practices mandated or agreed to, but little consistency in documenting this in standard metadata
    2. Makes it difficult to take those practices across communities unless one digs into the practice documentation
    3. Should these be published in community catalogs but not necessarily harvested?
  5. Clearinghouse operation: Converts harvested content as possible to ISO 19115 / 19119  metadata records in 19139 XML encoding.
    1. Still important to promulgate GEOSS Common Record (largely as an ISO profile?) to encourage values for those parameters to be defined.
    2. Defining a GCR record type in geonetwork as a reliable set of queryable parameters? Should look at the current capabilities to see what needs to be developed in terms of queryables. Result sets themselves are pretty flexible, being XSLT-based.
  6. Processing, workflow, and modeling use case
    1. Perhaps need a survey of usage in the present scenarios to be followed up by an ad hoc telecon to determine what a common use case may be.
    2. Processing and modeling use cases seem to have increased importance.
    3. Josh: Proposal to look at:
      1. Workflow - transformation of control
      2. Processing - transformation of data
      3. Modeling - transformation of quality / confidence / power
    4. AIP-2 - looked at documenting "canned" workflows. Does AIP-3 need more transparent / dynamic workflows.
    5. Greg - contingent processing may be an important intermediate step, e.g. an established workflow, but with decision points (e.g. to alert or not to alert, process or not process).
  7. Notifications - OWS-7 making some progress in defining an event service / interface across different types of content & service standards.



Actions:


  1. Erin - check out the clearinghouse capabilities.
  2. Josh - look at data quality status practices for a consensus (?!)
  3. Greg - quick look through developed scenarios for processing / workflow / modeling steps
  4. Nadine - look for a presentation of the event service from Johannes at an upcoming plenary or e2e call.



Logistics:

Site: http://sites.google.com/a/aip3.ogcnetwork.net/home/home/end2engineering-2/e2e-telecons/may10telecon
Local time: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=5&day=10&year=2010&hour=14&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
Dimdim & Telecon Info: http://my.dimdim.com/joshlieberman / Tel 702-473-3463 passcode 567454#
Google Docs: http://docs.google.com/a/aip3.ogcnetwork.net/Doc?docid=0AdIZtVKX1yn2ZDV6N3FmNF80Y3h6aHZyZmQ&hl=en

Comments