[Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog implementation? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Tue Aug 25 18:59:22 EDT 2009
(Damn time zones.... The conversation is almost over before I know it's started...)
I agree with Steve about avoiding concurrent sessions if possible, and about his priorities. Although there are a few important model glitches to fix (agenda coming soon).
My feeling is that Use Cases might not need a full day (correct me if I'm wrong), and we could start Service Architecture during Monday afternoon and into Tuesday AM. We could drop Model Design back to 2 days to give the CDTG half a day.
It's a lot to squeeze into 4.5 days, so I could see an evening session eventuating...
National Advice, Maps and Standards Project
Address: GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia | ABN: 80 091 799 039
Ph: (02) 62499575 | Fax: (02) 62499992 | Email: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --
From: Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 2:06 AM
To: Laxton, John L
Cc: Boisvert, Eric; Duffy, Timothy R; Raymond Oliver; jj.serrano at brgm.fr; lars.kristian.stolen at sgu.se; Broome, John; Brodaric, Boyan; Simon Cox
Subject: Re: QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog implementation?
It looks to me like too much going on Thursday-- data model, service
architecture, concept definitions. I'd like a half day with the CDTG
members who are present to review comments on a new version of the
lithology category vocabulary (simple lithology), and that may be
optimisitic. I would hate to not be able to participate in the service
architecture discussions as well-- I think they're pretty high priority
at this point if we want to get interoperable services working. At this
point, it seems to me that working on test bed use cases, service
architecture, and vocabularies is more important than major
modifications to the data model. Working out how to integrate ISO19139
metadata and O&M elements for structure data and boreholes into GeoSciML
documents to produce useful services is top priority in my book.
What I'd suggest is arrange the agenda to do UseCases (monday), then
Service Architecture (Tuesday), and based on those discussions,
prioritize data model discussions for day 3 and 4, with CDTG Wednesday AM?
The service architecture discussion could get some useful ideas and
issues from looking at what's up in the CSW world as part of the intro
for the discussion.
Laxton, John L wrote:
> At present we have a half day (Thursday morning) on the outline agenda for service architecture related topics, including OneGeology. Do you think this is enough? If not something else will have to give, or we can have a parallel session, or we can have an evening session as Steve suggests.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boisvert, Eric [mailto:Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> Sent: 25 August 2009 16:12
> To: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
> Cc: Laxton, John L; Duffy, Timothy R; Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr; lars.kristian.stolen at sgu.se; Broome, John; Brodaric, Boyan; Simon Cox
> Subject: RE: QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog implementation?
> CSW is a core component of the OneGeology architecture (is there another formal infrastructure for GeoSciML services beside OneGeology ?). It tells what WMS links to what WFS, it holds the registry and I suspect it will also be central to the resolver.
> Hardly a side-bar - i'd like to see this as a formal dicussion.
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]
> Envoyé : 25 août 2009 10:52
> À : Boisvert, Eric
> Cc : Laxton, John L; trd at bgs.ac.uk; Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr; lars.kristian.stolen at sgu.se; Broome, John; Brodaric, Boyan; Simon Cox
> Objet : QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog implementation?
> We've been putting a lot of effort into getting a CSW (OGC catalog service, v2.0.2, ISO19115 profile) implementation working, and I'm wondering how many others have been wrestling with the same issue? There are alot of aspects of a working CSW architecture that I think we'll need to deal with in the long run to get working/interoperable GeoSciML services going. If there's any interest, an evening sidebar meeting to discuss work on CSW would be useful for those of us working on that aspect of the problem...
> What do you think?
> Stephen M. Richard
> Section Chief, Geoinformatics
> Arizona Geological Survey
> 416 W. Congress St., #100
> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
> Office: (520) 209-4127
> Reception: (520) 770-3500
> FAX: (520) 770-3505
> email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Stephen M. Richard
Section Chief, Geoinformatics
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
Office: (520) 209-4127
Reception: (520) 770-3500
FAX: (520) 770-3505
email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
More information about the GeoSciML