1295days since
Demo Capture

Recent site activity

Telecon 5 April

posted Apr 4, 2010, 1:32 PM by Nadine Alameh   [ updated Apr 6, 2010, 5:30 AM by Joshua Lieberman ]

Connection Details:

Agenda:

  • Quick review of issues from kickoff
  • Discussion of draft UIC User Type Taxonomy

  • Topics for next telecon
Participants:
  • Nadine A, Josh L, Will P, Stefan F, Erin R, Steve B
Notes:
  • Need to involve other members of AIP-3 into E2E WG
    • Please sign up to mailing list
    • Please review and add to list of issues so we know what your needs are! 
    • This group is primarily a support group for the Community WGs as they go through the process of utilizing and augmenting the GCI.
    • Need to get the message out that the (mandatory) methodology for scenario development is being advanced in this group.
    • Need also to work on a schedule of liaisons and joint meetings between groups to keep collaboration and coordination moving along. Question as to how best to identify coordination needs. A good start is always to put meetings in the plenary calendar and post an agenda on the dashboard page, then link from one to the other. There is also a news gadget on the AIP-3 front page for urgent issues.
  • Discussion on user types and draft UIC User Type Taxonomy
    • More information from UIC on the complete taxonomy(including description of categories and options) is needed
    • Will the User Type Taxonomy be utilized in the User Requirements Registry to match users with requirements?
    • In AIP-3, the GEOSS User is only one type of actor (one representing the consumer side of GEOSS). What about resource providers, integrators, operators, and other contributors to the GEOSS Common Infrastructure? Those constitute a different type of GEOSS Users that are not addressed in the User Type Taxonomy.
    • Identification and profiling of users is a critical first step in the scenario methodology and the E2E WG is standing by to support Community WGs in the process. Decision whether it is a methodology "step" or should be promoted as a reusable and iterative engineering use case in the way that  "register new interoperability arrangements" is.
    • Next steps:
      • Get more information on the UIC User Type Taxonomy
      • Reconcile UIC User Type Taxonomy with AIP-3 Actors (to factor in resource providers, integrators and other contributors to the GCI)
      • Work with AIP-3 Community WGs to identify/profile scenario users to exercise the user type taxonomy and to identify gaps
  • Discussion on the GEOSS Common Record (from AQ Working Group)
    • Objective: Match the metadata for the components registered directly in the CSR with the metadata for the components registered in community catalogs
      • Community metadata may contain more or less than the CSR required metadata.
      • Community metadata may not be as tightly defined as needed for federated interoperability. Semantic matching can help with this, but why climb a mountain when it could be a small hill?

    • Issue regarding associating a data record with multiple services (e.g. WMS and WCS as in air quality) and vice-versa. We need to get this association right in GEOSS and sooner rather than later. Is an ISO / INSPIRE profile the right approach? The issue is tightly coupled (sic) to identifiers, so that information about a dataset or service from multiple sources can be deconvolved and is only presented once, not in combinatoric excess.
    • Need to add use constraints (a likely recommendation from the Data Sharing WG)
    • Discussion about minimizing the impacts on communities due to the evolution of the GCI and the potential addition of new metadata requirements
      • Need to capture best practices and to ensure that they are updated
      • Hopefully communities will be enough invested in the success of GEOSS and see its value that they will continue to evolve with GEOSS.
      • Should be defined as an interface to GEOSS, not a requirement to redo community practice. Nonetheless, the metadata element values need to come from somewhere authoritative, or at least accurate.
    • Next steps:
      • Erin will update the GEOSS Common Record to include the use constraints
      • Erin will create a page that contains only the proposed fields and will circulate for feedback within AIP-3


Comments