GEOSS Interoperability Workshop November 12-13, 2009 1 SIF Technical Talking Points.

GEOSS Interoperability WorkshopNovember 12-13, 2009

1

SIF Technical Talking Points


2

Standards Convergence• Assumption is that short list of consensus standards is desirable

• What’s the goal?

– Interoperability between prime data sources

• Criteria selection (most already in place for SIR review)

– Easy to implement

– Availability of reference implementations, tools

– Maturity

– Stability/maintained

– Well documented

• Engage w/ community developing stds/tools

• Categorize by application• Impact on GEOSS and GCI

• What’s the process?

– Rating system

– SIF recommendations

– Survey

• Need tools to go along w/ stds to make it easy to be conformant

• Limit proliferation of profiles


3

User Perspective

• Smithsonian– How to enhance interdisciplinary science– Recommendations on website– Directive to be more relevant, accessible, engage

in more collaboration– CIO: interested in curation– Wants to leverage similar efforts– No uniform policy on standards, data management

• STRI driver, bio, ecology


4

attitude

• Would they take guidance from GEOSS?– Willing to take guidance, adhere to what’s in

widespread practice or recommended– They also need “instant success”

• EPA– put in context of stds efforts across

agencies/nations (bio, water, etc. elsewhere)– Bound by SBA mission?– Looking to GEO for leadership of EO, geospatial

stds for envr. AssessmentGEOSS Interoperability Workshop

November 12-13, 20095

EU (ocean, gbif)

• Motivating data providers to adopt stds

• Community–centric view

• Real asset is cross-discipline interop

• Adverse to ranking

• Intra-community stds vs. inter-community stds– Heterogeneity of profiles– Bridging / mediation


6


7

Standards Convergence

• Rating system– User-driven

• CoPs– Could publish in Bpwiki– Challenging– What is process communities use to decide

• Just publish preferred • Just tell me how to do it

– Tools– Cookbooks– Guidelines

• JAXA– Hears conflicting requests for stds– CFP vendors don’t reply because specs in

EnglishGEOSS Interoperability Workshop

November 12-13, 20098

• Find providers willing to participate in study of what’s required to make data available in GEOSS– Case studies, exemplars– Is what AIP is doing?– Works better when approach via CoPs

• Water quality (ESIP): Find leading ontologies, semantic arch, display an integration tools, use cases

– What’s in use, what’s workingGEOSS Interoperability Workshop

November 12-13, 20099

• Role of SIF?– Recipient of AIP findings– Do studies? Surveys?

• Communities unlikely to change ways they do business, but still wish to share data– Bridging stds – Rank stds by how many other stds “link” to it– How to determine? If CSR/SIR fully

populated might priveGEOSS Interoperability Workshop

November 12-13, 200910

Basic assumptions

• Must accept all offerings– And provide information on how they do

business– Parallel experiment

• highlighting what’s working• Interative effort, fill gaps

• Positive deviance– Support/showcase desired behavior


11

• Advocacy

• Work w/ early adopter, showcase success– Bridging the “chasm”


12

• Humanity at critical juncture

• EO information essential to make informed decisions


13

Politics & Process

• Maintain current process– SIR, rating process– Utility of portals in question, but registries – tuned to

work with active communities, are impt

• In parallel– Work w/ CoPs to demonstrate successes

• GeoBON developing architecture, scenarios

– Lessons from AIP• Global identifier scheme• Determine and communicate “best standards”• Support framework data and standards data types


14

• Proposal from Sonntag– Semantically linked data, from self org in

communities, ontologies– RDF expressions, will be defacto in data

sharing


15


16


• SIF recommenations


17


• Public survey


18

Standards Convergence Take Aways

• Further work

• Final decisions


19

Data Access

• Authentication/single login– Keeping track of users; barrier to entry?– Centralized means for authentication and access

to use data would be useful

• Digital Rights Management (DRM)– Licensing

• Provenance/Attribution• Acknowledgment to producers for publishing

• Billing


20

Data Access

• Authentication/single login– Central Authentication Service (CAS)

• http://www.jasig.org/cas• Created at Yale• In use since, at least, 2004

• OpenID– Used by government– Decentralized

• Fewest obstacles to registering and tracking users – see AIP-3

http://www.jasig.org/cas


21

Data Access

• Digital Rights Management (DRM)


22

Data Access

• Provenance/Attribution


23

Data Access

• Billing


24

Data Access Take Aways

• Further work – see AIP-3 for practical exercise in simple registration

and data sharing– Additional process needed for data providers with

greater restrictions than tested in AIP-3

• Final decisions– SIF will follow work done and encourage

documentation in Best Practices WIKI– Update Tactical and Strategic Guidance on usage of

GCI (AR-09-01a)


25

Usage of GEOSS Resources

• Automation

• Publish-Find-Bind use case


26

Usage of GEOSS Resources Take Aways

• Further work– BP Wiki needs content!– Links to BPWiki from Wikipedia– Point to user blogs of experiences using

GEOSS– NASA SPG will add BPWiki content, with links

to SPG source docs– BP’s to be registered for direct linkage to GCI

GEOSS Resources Take-away

• BPWiki– All of these proposals for standards

convergence, capacity building etc just discussed now etc can go there now

– The wiki should not be bound by any particular format constraints. Short or detailed contributions can go there.


27

GEOSS Resources Take-away

• Standards Registry– Add links to Schemas and validators, and test

frameworks, for standards in the registry

• GCI guidance?– Consolidated requirements not sufficient to promote

complete interoperability• Need to specifiy which data model, which version of

standards for a well-established base line• But this is very CoP-dependent• Bridging/mediation may be needed between multiple

community standards


28


29

Alternate Search Mechanisms

• OpenSearch


30

Alternate Search Mechanisms Take Aways

• Further work

• Final decisions


31

Semantic Interoperability

• What do we mean?

• Near-term expectations (1 year)


32

Semantic Interoperability Take Aways

• Further work

• Final decisions


33

Standards Taxonomy

• How do we review?


34

Standards TaxonomyTake Aways

• Further work

• Final decisions

GEOSS Interoperability Workshop November 12-13, 2009 1 SIF Technical Talking Points.

Documents

Transcript of GEOSS Interoperability Workshop November 12-13, 2009 1 SIF Technical Talking Points.