[Auscope-geosciml] OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Simon Cox simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
Thu Aug 27 04:01:17 EDT 2009


But please note that there is a lot packed into 'ask the OGC to clarify the
architecture'. 
For example, if you ask Carl, he will just bounce it to a list, and there
may never be a response. 
 
In order to get concrete action out of OGC you have to either
 
(a) prepare a change request to an existing spec
- this means that you must a solution to propose, not just a problem to
describe
(b) bring it to the attention of the relevant WG
(c) do the hard work to ensure that it gets followed up. Will probably
involve attending many meetings. 
 
or
 
(i) get involved in an interoperability program activity (testbed or
experiment) to expose the problem
(ii) make sure it gets included in the engineering reports
(iii) go to (a)
 
or
 
(1) draft a new spec
(2) go to (b)
 
What is more or less guaranteed to fail is simply sending a question off and
crossing your fingers waiting for the solution to land in your lap. 
 
OGC is a voluntary consensus organization. 
Its staff are facilitators, and do not do the technical work. 
The work is done by the membership, who pay attention to the things that are
bothering them, and generally will not pay much attention to messages
dropping in from the outside. 
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 


  _____  

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of
Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au
Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2009 04:26
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr
Cc: Robert.Woodcock at csiro.au; Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


 
Hi,
 
its better that someone who truly represents the domain takes on this role,
but I'm willing and resourced under AuScope to provide some assistance.
 
The document provided has a key "contract" hidden in the data flow
description, step 1
 
"the WMS Client displays the available features. "
 
I.e. the architecture includes some contract between the metadata exposed by
the WMS and the available features in WFS, searchable via the registry.
 
What does this look like? it is embedded in layer name, keywords, referenced
metadata documents, describeLayer ..
 
from the ether....
 
"WMS DescribeLayer is currently part of the SLD WMS spec, and is meant to
> tie a WMS layer to a WFS typename or WCS coverage. Not all WMS services
> implement this though, Mapserver and Geoserver do, but e.g. ArcGIS
> Server currently does not. There are plans to move the DescribeLayer
> request from SLD WMS to mainstream WMS in WMS 1.4. A simple parser for
> WMS DescribeLayer response is in [1].
>
> Currently a lot of applications by-pass WMS DescribeLayer and assume WMS
> OnlineResource = WFS OnlineResource and WMS layer name = WFS typename.
> Although this will work in some cases, it will fail in others, but it
> saves a trip to the server. So a question for GeoExt is: do we want to
> follow the OGC way in this? I would be in favour of using WMS
> DescribeLayer even if this is an extra round-trip to the server. But
> what do others think?
>
"
 
I would suggest this is a good place to ask the OGC to clarify the
architecture - is it a requirement for a best practice convention or
something that needs to be made explicit in the  OGC specifications.
 
Rob

 
 
  _____  

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2009 11:23 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr
Cc: Woodcock, Robert (E&M, Kensington); Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Importance: High



Hi Service Architecture group,

 

1.  Submissions for the OGC meeting agenda close about 3 weeks before the
meeting (ie: ~ 7 September) so we can't wait until Quebec to get a slot at
Darmstadt.  The only other timing issue was to synchronise time zones if
there was to be any teleconferencing by people from outside Europe.  Mark
Reichardt saw no problems in accommodating this need.
(http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tcagenda)

 

2.  Overnight Mark spoke to Carl Reed (Executive Director, Specification
Program OGC) and has requested that I talk to Carl in more depth about
issues of WMS-WFS chaining and catalog.  

 

We are at the point where the Service Architecture group needs to do this
communication with OGC, not me (and I am rapidly getting into technical
depths beyond my capabilities).  Can I have a volunteer to do that please?
Carl's contact details are:

 

Executive Director, Specification Program, CTO 

creed at opengeospatial.org 

Phone: +1 970 419 8755

Fax: +1 970 407 1101  

 

I have attached an email from Carl and a document he provided describing how
one organisation has implemented WMS-WFS chaining.

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Percival
Dale
Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2009 10:01 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] OGC specs, and modelling approaches
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

In discussions that I had with Mark Reichardt yesterday he gave me a great
list of contacts to follow up of OGC members that have already wrestled with
the technical issues. He suggested that some of these people would be more
than willing to assist specific implementers in setting up their own systems
as well. In particular the marine group and GeoConnections, of which we have
yet another visitor here today.

 

Cheers,

Dale Percival

________________________________

 

Application Development Team Leader

Information Development and Analysis Services

 

GPO Box 378, Canberra

ACT 2601

ph:+61 2 6249 9265

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Duffy,
Timothy R

Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2009 2:32 AM

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] SIDE bar CSW and Mark Reichardt of OGC

 

I too met Mark Reichardt in June at the INSPIRE Rotterdam conference - and
it may be as a result of that discussion where he always wants more input
from us (GeoSciML/OneGeology)  at TC meetings that this offer has spawned. I
was speaking to him specifically about KML and its development as an OGC
standard.

Actually this makes me realise that I want to ask if Francois as 'our' OGC
board member is looking for issues for us to raise there at an appropriate
point - if asked I would say 'Francois what is the nature of the agreement
between ISO and OGC in ISO taking forward the WFS 2.0 standard (has OGC
development of WFS 1.2 stopped as I believe but am unsure)? Will the WFS 2.0
standard be published at no cost (ISO standards cost money to legally
access, OGC standards documents do not, that is not an issue with me but
often an issue with opensource developers) with an OGC branding (like WMS
1.3 has an OGC and an ISO branding - nearly identical contents) and when
will it in practice be available? ISO web site refers to final formal
standard being ready 09/2010 but that is too far in future for our needs in
my opinion  (Simon says the standard is in actuality fixed and stable now).

 

Regards

Tim

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Simon Cox
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:57 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: 'Serrano Jean-Jacques'
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW
catalogimplementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Yes - I'll be there.

 

The OGC Technical Committee is the main body of the 'Specification Program'

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects.

At a meeting, the action happens almost exclusively within working groups,

either in open meetings of domain working groups

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/wg or closed meetings of

standards working groups http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/swg

plus some satellite meetings of other groups

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/sc.

 

The preliminary program of groups meetings at the upcoming TC meeting is

here: http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tcagenda

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Simon Cox

 

European Commission, Joint Research Centre,

Institute for Environment and Sustainability,

Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262

Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy

Tel: +39 0332 78 3652

Fax: +39 0332 78 6325

mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox

 

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 

-----Original Message-----

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Robida

Francois

Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 09:29

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Cc: Serrano Jean-Jacques

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW

catalogimplementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi Ollie,

 

Thanks for the information.

I do not know yet if Jean-Jacques will attend the Darmstadt, anyway the will

certainly be some GeoSciML people (Simon ?). Did Mark suggested any slot of

the TC to include this dfiscussion ?

 

Cheers,

 

François

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Message: 1

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:46:08 +1000

From: <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>

Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog

        implementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

To: <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

Cc: Chris.Body at ga.gov.au

Message-ID:

        <64596720D115484A9F1C2DC2D4CB0021597E4F5352 at EXCCR01.agso.gov.au>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

 

Hi all,

 

In a fortuitous accident of timing, Mark Reichardt (CEO of OGC) was visiting
GA today.  In talking about our experiences with WMS, WFS, and CSW, he
encouraged us (the GeoSciML community) to document our discussions at Quebec
and forward any ideas and best practice recommendations that we come up with
to OGC for inclusion as an agenda item at the OGC Technical meeting in
Darmstadt, Germany on 28 Sept - 2 October
(http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tc).

 

He suggested that we have a technical representative from our architecture
group teleconference to Darmstadt during that agenda item.  We would need to
reserve a time slot in the Darstadt agenda that is convenient for the
relative time zones.

 

Would any of our more technically-minded people (maybe Eric, or
Jean-Jacques, or Steve) like to take up this opportunity to influence OGC
practices?

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

Ollie Raymond

National Advice,  Maps and Standards Project

Geoscience Australia

 

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

Web:
http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp

Google Map

 

-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

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.

 

steve

 

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.

>

> John

>

> -----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.

>

> Eric

>

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]

> Envoy? : 25 ao?t 2009 10:52

> ? : 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?

>

> steve

>

> --

> Stephen M. Richard

> Section Chief, Geoinformatics

> Arizona Geological Survey

> 416 W. Congress St., #100

> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

>

> Phone:

> 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

 

Phone:

Office: (520) 209-4127

Reception: (520) 770-3500

FAX: (520) 770-3505

 

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

Message: 2

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:28:38 +0200

From: "Robida  Francois" <f.robida at brgm.fr>

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW

        catalog implementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

To: <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

Cc: Serrano Jean-Jacques <jj.serrano at brgm.fr>

Message-ID: <31A9DA7C8AA6E949B09463F8E0A6DDFA944FD3 at RES005.brgm.fr>

Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

 

Hi Ollie,

 

Thanks for the information.

I do not know yet if Jean-Jacques will attend the Darmstadt, anyway the will
certainly be some GeoSciML people (Simon ?). Did Mark suggested any slot of
the TC to include this dfiscussion ?

 

Cheers,

 

Fran?ois

 

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----

De?: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au

Envoy??: mercredi 26 ao?t 2009 08:46

??: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Cc?: Chris.Body at ga.gov.au

Objet?: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog
implementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi all,

 

In a fortuitous accident of timing, Mark Reichardt (CEO of OGC) was visiting
GA today.  In talking about our experiences with WMS, WFS, and CSW, he
encouraged us (the GeoSciML community) to document our discussions at Quebec
and forward any ideas and best practice recommendations that we come up with
to OGC for inclusion as an agenda item at the OGC Technical meeting in
Darmstadt, Germany on 28 Sept - 2 October
(http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tc).

 

He suggested that we have a technical representative from our architecture
group teleconference to Darmstadt during that agenda item.  We would need to
reserve a time slot in the Darstadt agenda that is convenient for the
relative time zones.

 

Would any of our more technically-minded people (maybe Eric, or
Jean-Jacques, or Steve) like to take up this opportunity to influence OGC
practices?

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

Ollie Raymond

National Advice,  Maps and Standards Project

Geoscience Australia

 

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

Web:
http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp

Google Map

 

-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

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.

 

steve

 

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.

>

> John

>

> -----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.

>

> Eric

>

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]

> Envoy? : 25 ao?t 2009 10:52

> ? : 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?

>

> steve

>

> --

> Stephen M. Richard

> Section Chief, Geoinformatics

> Arizona Geological Survey

> 416 W. Congress St., #100

> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

>

> Phone:

> 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

 

Phone:

Office: (520) 209-4127

Reception: (520) 770-3500

FAX: (520) 770-3505

 

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

****************************************************************************
******************

Pensez a l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce message

Think Environment before printing

 

Le contenu de ce mel et de ses pieces jointes est destine a l'usage exclusif
du (des) destinataire(s) designe

(s) comme tel(s).

En cas de reception par erreur, le signaler e son expediteur et ne pas en
divulguer le contenu.

L'absence de virus a ete verifiee e l'emission, il convient neanmoins de
s'assurer de l'absence de

contamination a sa reception.

 

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are
intended for the named recipient

(s) only.

If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or
the sender immediately and do

not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies.

eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content.

****************************************************************************
******************

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

Message: 3

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:16:26 +0100

From: "Laxton, John L" <jll at bgs.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW

        catalog implementation? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

To: "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au"

        <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

Message-ID:

        <40829B0E077C1145A6DE44D39B3830A9045E699272 at nerckwmb1.ad.nerc.ac.uk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

 

That sounds OK to me. I'll change the agenda along these lines if there are
no objections in the next 24 hours.

 

John

 

-----Original Message-----

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au

Sent: 25 August 2009 23:59

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog
implementation? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

(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...

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

Ollie Raymond

National Advice,  Maps and Standards Project

Geoscience Australia

 

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

Web:
http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp

Google Map

 

-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

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.

 

steve

 

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.

>

> John

>

> -----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.

>

> Eric

>

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]

> Envoy? : 25 ao?t 2009 10:52

> ? : 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?

>

> steve

>

> --

> Stephen M. Richard

> Section Chief, Geoinformatics

> Arizona Geological Survey

> 416 W. Congress St., #100

> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

>

> Phone:

> 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

 

Phone:

Office: (520) 209-4127

Reception: (520) 770-3500

FAX: (520) 770-3505

 

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

 

--

This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC

is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents

of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless

it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to

NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

Message: 4

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:42 +0200

From: "Simon Cox" <simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu>

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW

        catalogimplementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

To: <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

Cc: 'Serrano Jean-Jacques' <jj.serrano at brgm.fr>

Message-ID: <A22A2CBF31934146BCCC64ED8E25D2FD at H07.jrc.it>

Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

 

Yes - I'll be there.

 

The OGC Technical Committee is the main body of the 'Specification Program'

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects.

At a meeting, the action happens almost exclusively within working groups,

either in open meetings of domain working groups

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/wg or closed meetings of

standards working groups http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/swg

plus some satellite meetings of other groups

http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/sc.

 

The preliminary program of groups meetings at the upcoming TC meeting is

here: http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tcagenda

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Simon Cox

 

European Commission, Joint Research Centre,

Institute for Environment and Sustainability,

Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262

Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy

Tel: +39 0332 78 3652

Fax: +39 0332 78 6325

mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox

 

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 

-----Original Message-----

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Robida

Francois

Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 09:29

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Cc: Serrano Jean-Jacques

Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW

catalogimplementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi Ollie,

 

Thanks for the information.

I do not know yet if Jean-Jacques will attend the Darmstadt, anyway the will

certainly be some GeoSciML people (Simon ?). Did Mark suggested any slot of

the TC to include this dfiscussion ?

 

Cheers,

 

Fran?ois

 

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----

De?: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Envoy??: mercredi 26 ao?t 2009 08:46 ??:

auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Cc?: Chris.Body at ga.gov.au

Objet?: [Auscope-geosciml] QuebecF2F2009-- side bar on CSW catalog

implementation - OGC follow up? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi all,

 

In a fortuitous accident of timing, Mark Reichardt (CEO of OGC) was visiting

GA today.  In talking about our experiences with WMS, WFS, and CSW, he

encouraged us (the GeoSciML community) to document our discussions at Quebec

and forward any ideas and best practice recommendations that we come up with

to OGC for inclusion as an agenda item at the OGC Technical meeting in

Darmstadt, Germany on 28 Sept - 2 October

(http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/0909tc).

 

He suggested that we have a technical representative from our architecture

group teleconference to Darmstadt during that agenda item.  We would need to

reserve a time slot in the Darstadt agenda that is convenient for the

relative time zones.

 

Would any of our more technically-minded people (maybe Eric, or

Jean-Jacques, or Steve) like to take up this opportunity to influence OGC

practices?

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------

Ollie Raymond

National Advice,  Maps and Standards Project Geoscience Australia

 

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

Web:

http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp

Google Map

 

-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

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.

 

steve

 

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.

>

> John

>

> -----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.

>

> Eric

>

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : Stephen M Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov]

> Envoy? : 25 ao?t 2009 10:52

> ? : 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?

>

> steve

>

> --

> Stephen M. Richard

> Section Chief, Geoinformatics

> Arizona Geological Survey

> 416 W. Congress St., #100

> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

>

> Phone:

> 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

 

Phone:

Office: (520) 209-4127

Reception: (520) 770-3500

FAX: (520) 770-3505

 

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

****************************************************************************

******************

Pensez a l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce message Think Environment

before printing

 

Le contenu de ce mel et de ses pieces jointes est destine a l'usage exclusif

du (des) destinataire(s) designe

(s) comme tel(s).

En cas de reception par erreur, le signaler e son expediteur et ne pas en

divulguer le contenu.

L'absence de virus a ete verifiee e l'emission, il convient neanmoins de

s'assurer de l'absence de contamination a sa reception.

 

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are

intended for the named recipient

(s) only.

If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or

the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make

copies.

eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content.

****************************************************************************

******************

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

 

 

End of Auscope-geosciml Digest, Vol 5, Issue 24

***********************************************

 

--

This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC

is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents

of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless

it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to

NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.

 

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

_______________________________________________

Auscope-geosciml mailing list

Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20090827/1f1329b0/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list