Status Report GEO Task AR-06-01

1. Status ReportGEO Task AR-06-01 Siri Jodha Singh Khalsa Ryosuke Shibasaki

2. AR-06-01 Task definition • Build consensus around a Process for GEO Members and Participating Organizations to reach agreement on GEOSS interoperability specifications, with emphasis on adherence to existing international standards such as ISO, with the definition of interoperability informed by the GEO 10-Year Implementation Plan Reference Document. • Initiate a mechanism for GEO Members and Participating organizations to provide input on interoperability specifications and the GEOSS Interoperability Registry. • Propose a Standards and Interoperability Forumto implement the Process defined under this Task.

3. AR-06-01 Task definition, cont’d • Create a reference database of Interoperability Standards currently used in Earth observation systems and a summary of Standards Development Organizations relevant to GEOSS, and provide this content for the GEOSS Interoperability Registry to be created under Task AR-06-04.

4. Deliverable outputs • GEO process for reaching interoperability arrangements • Content for GEOSS Interoperability Registry

5. Team Activity • Telephone conference calls • 18 May 2006, 1400 UTC • 1 June 2006, 1400 UTC • 11 July 2006, 2300 UTC (to accommodate Australia) • Circulation of draft “Strawman Process” via Email and subsequent email discussions • Of the twenty-six AR-06-01 members listed on the roster, ten have contributed comments or participated in one or more telecons

6. Strawman: A Process for Reaching GEOSS Interoperability Arrangements • A Standards and Interoperability Forum (SIF) will be created • To carry out impartial review and to recommend solutions to GEO interoperability issues. • Membership in the SIF will be open to any GEO member or Contributing Member. • The process is to be initiated by those who are attempting to implement a particular GEO Task.

7. Guiding Principles of the SIF • The SIF will encourage broader use of existing standards as one factor in recommending interoperability arrangements. • The SIF will consider existing international standards organizations and institutes as a focal point for the GEOSS interoperability objectives. • In rare cases where no existing standard fulfills GEOSS needs, the SIF could identify appropriate Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) to carry out the standards development process.

8. Strawman Process - Steps • A request for assistance with interoperability arrangements is received from a GEO Task • The issue is entered into the Interoperability Registry with identifier "under review.“ • The SIF studies the issue, soliciting community input and invites expert opinion as needed. • After weighing all input and reviewing all options, the SIF recommends a solution. • The proposed solution will be forwarded to the submitting parties. If accepted by the submitting parties, the designation in the Registry is changed to "accepted." • If the solution proposed by the SIF is not acceptable to all parties involved, the scope of interoperability for the affected systems may need to be narrowed in order to achieve consensus. • Note: Initially, the Interoperability Registry would only be concerned with new work.

9. A Process for Reaching GEOSS Interoperability Arrangements Present interoperability issue Requests input Experts, SDOs, Community Recommendation Input provided Accept or Reject Register the recommendations, if “accepted” Register the issues as “under review” Study for possible existing solutions References Entered in Established Standards Specifications “Initially Identified Systems” and underlying GEOSS standards SIF GEO tasks GEO interoperability registry

10. SIF - Outstanding Issues • Contents of Interoperability Registry • Initial “arrangements” mentioned in 10-yr Implementation Plan Ref. Doc., e.g. ISO 19115 • Standards and specifications/protocols adhered to by “identified systems” that would be available to other GEOSS components • Those “arrangements” agreed to as part of the “Process” in which specific interoperability issues are resolved • "All interface implementations should be ... verified through interoperability testing and public demonstrations." [Reference Document] • Does this apply to all interoperability arrangements? • Who certifies compliance?

11. Future Work • Initial content for GEOSS Interoperability Registry: mid October 2006 • If decide to populate with GEO “core” stnds. • May enlist help of ISWG • Next version of “Process” document: end of September 2006 • Submit to Plenary for approval in Dec. • Use-Case testing of “Process” • WIS, Biodiversity, CEOP etc. • Community Briefings • Asia/Pacific, Africa, Europe, S. America, N. America etc.

12. Contact Details sirijodha.khalsa@ieee.org shiba@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp

13. Activities of the ISWG • The IEEE Committee on Earth Observations Standards Working Group (ISWG) has been working on background standards issues for GEO since May of 2005. • Will act as consultative body for the SIF.

14. Progress so far….

15. Standards In Use Survey • Question 1: Data Formats • Please indicate what formats you use for storing and distributing data (ASCII, binary, BUFR, geoTIFF, HDF, netCDF, SDTS, etc.) • Question 2: Metadata Standards • Please tell us what metadata standard(s) are used to describe your data (ISO19115, FGDC, etc.). • Question 3: Catalog Interoperability Standards • Are the holdings of your archive searchable via catalog interoperability standards (Z39.50, etc.)? If so, what are they? • Question 4: OGC Standards • Are the holdings of your archive accessible through any of the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards? If so, which (WMS, WCS, WFS, etc.)? • Question 5: Data Acquisition Standards • Are you aware of what standards were used in the acquisition of the data you serve, i.e. standards related to sensing, transmission, quality assessment, etc. • Question 6: Archival Standards • Do you follow any formal standards for the long-term preservation of your data holdings (e.g. PREMIS)? • Question 7: Interoperability • Are there any other standards or procedures that you follow to maximize the usability of and access to your data holdings? • Each Question also asks • What factors did your organization consider in choosing these standards?

16. SDO Characterization • Scope of technical activities • Geographic Scope (National, International) • Conditions of Membership • Requirements for initiating a new project • Process for approval of new project • Timeframes • Voting • Process for approval of the standard • Maintenance procedures • review, revision, and reaffirmation • Availability of standard (cost, access, etc.)