Data Services Task Team Proposal Discussion at WGISS #25

1. Data Services Task Team ProposalDiscussion at WGISS #25 February, 2008 Lyndon R. Oleson U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center Sioux Falls, SD

2. Data Services Task Team Proposal • ACTION WGISS-24-25: • Lyndon Oleson to coordinate a group to draft a new terms of reference for the DSTT for review and action at WGISS-25.

3. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Considerations • From WGISS 24: • Concerns were raised regarding the coherence and direction of the DSTT • Concerns were expressed that the presentations made under the DSTT agenda, while including some information on Web Services, tended to focus more on describing user functionality and applications rather than on technical strategies and challenges and associated lessons learned • It was recommended that the focus of the DSTT be on Web Services technologies and implementation strategies and lessons learned and that the name of the task team possibly be changed to reflect this emphasis • It was indicated that when the DSTT was formed, the focus was on web services and so updating the name to reflect that may achieve a desirable outcome

4. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Considerations • From WGISS 24: • It was suggested that an annual plan of activities should be produced by the task teams to focus their efforts • It was agreed that the reorganization of the DSTT should also further the task team’s ability to service the interaction with GEO • The following next steps were proposed: • draft new DSTT terms of reference for review and proposal at WGISS-25; • identify primary topics of interest or concern related to web services usage for presentation/discussion at future meetings; • identify web services technology reps; • consider evolving the possible concurrent sessions to resolve agenda problems; and • update the WGISS DSTT web site

5. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Considerations • Task Team Structure and Mechanics: • WGISS and its task teams are not independently funded and are inherently “best effort” in nature • WGISS-specific tasks depend on volunteer efforts of members utilizing whatever resources they may have available • Significant Task Team “deliverables” principally result from the collaborative efforts of two or more members that create a higher-level or value added result from work already planned or underway within their own organizations • To make progress on significant task team deliverables requires significant interaction and time spent outside of the limited available agenda slots for WGISS meetings • These focused task efforts also need to directly involve the appropriate technical staff from the agencies that in many cases are not the principle WGISS representatives

6. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Observations • The description of the DSTT on the WGISS web site, though a bit out of date, still seems very relevant • What, then, are the root issues that are necessitating a review and refocusing of the Data Services Task Team? • It appears that the majority of the problem seems to be stemming from the structure and mechanics of the Task Team and much less related to its scope or basic purpose • There seems to be too little time or attention being brought to technical topics and experiences related to Web Services within the limited (~1 hour) time slots allotted at WGISS meetings.

7. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Observations • Root Issues? Basic structure? • Using WGISS 24 as an example, the presentations each contained some OGC standards information, but the majority of the presentation materials were about the functionality and data content available to users rather than on details of OGC implementation approaches, challenges and lessons learned. • Even had the presentations focused primarily on the technical aspects of OGC implementations, there wouldn’t have been enough time to have technical discussions with the presenters to explore the topics. • Also, are the right technical representatives available to have meaningful technical discussions and to maximize benefit? How many of the WGISS meeting participants would find the session boring or of minimal personal relevance or interest?

8. Data Services Task Team Proposal • What are some of the ways we can mitigate this situation? • Shouldn’t we encourage the Task Team to take on a much stronger life outside of the WGISS/Subgroup meetings? • As a minimum, shouldn’t there be additional telecons? • Shouldn’t there also be face-to-face meetings of the task team at least once a year? • Telecons alone are not as productive or conducive • Task team members should try to meet separately possibly at appropriate conferences • Rather than trying to give equal time to all Task Teams at the WGISS meetings, we could choose to give extended time to one particular topic at each meeting – sort of one-day mini workshops. This would then help agencies justify bringing specific experts to the meetings. So one meeting could focus on Web Services; the next on global datasets, etc. • It has also been mentioned that perhaps we should go back to separate WGISS and Subgroup meetings – but this would increase overall meeting attendances for Agencies which is still an issue

9. Data Services Task Team Proposal • If we truly wish to make major contributions to GEO and GEOSS, these task teams need to have more time available and more appropriate participation and interaction than in one brief agenda element of the bi-annual WGISS meetings.

10. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Another Basic Observation • How many of our Task Teams are working on “tasks”? • Intuitive definition of “task”: • A piece of work to be accomplished in a certain timeframe • How many of our Task Teams are working on specific pieces of work (deliverables?) to be completed in certain timeframes? • We should not create or perpetuate “task teams” that are not working on specific task deliverables to a certain schedule. • Difference between “team” tasks vs. individual agency tasks. Task teams should be formed around “team” tasks involving more than one agency in the development and execution of the deliverable.

11. Data Services Task Team Proposal • Recommendations: • Disband the Data Services Task Team • Create a “Special Interest Group” for Web Services technologies within the T&S Subgroup • Purpose of a Web Services Special Interest Group • Foster technical sharing among members • Maintain a list of “expert participants” from agencies for technical referrals and dialog • Sponsor technical exchange forums (e.g. workshops, Q&A sessions, telecons) at WGISS Subgroup meetings or elsewhere • Draft potential task proposals and task plans for WGISS

12. Data Services Task Team Proposal WGISS Plenary Subgroup A Subgroup B Subgroup C Special Interest Group Special Interest Group Special Interest Group TT TT