[Auscope-geosciml] Summary: Re: OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs

stephen richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Sat Aug 29 12:31:08 EDT 2009


OK, let me see if I got this straight--
Requirements
-- allow WMS getFeatureInfo to have various content models: a) the 
simple one provided out of the box by current WMS, which is backed 
typically by some kind of simple feature/flat file. b) one (or more?) 
complex feature schema like GeoSciML for geologic features; feature info 
might be requested in 'raw' xml format, or formatted into pretty html.
-- WMS should broadcast association with WFS that serves the features 
displayed by the WMS. It would seem that this coupling would need to 
occur at the layer level. Use case is use WMS to browse a map, identify 
area of interest, and request feature data from coupled WFS for some 
feature type in area of interest.

WMS 1.3 has associated SLD WMS spec (OGC 05-078r4) that defines an 
optional describeLayer operation that will return the WFS url 
(onlineResource) that serves features displayed in the layer. This 
allows client side implementation of the above two requirements. 
Apparently from Rob's quote, it is not considered part of WMS 1.3? 
GeoServer and mapServer implement, it appears that Deegree (2.3) does 
not, ESRI does not.

I've played with Eric's solution to the requirement one problem above, 
we could possibly define some community agreement on text/formats types 
to request different getFeatureInfo responses (no change to WMS 
required), but something like CSW's abilty to specify different 
outputSchema  (default vs. Geosciml) and format would be more ?correct? 
(but would require OGC process to change WMS...).

Action items--
support inclusion of describeLayer as part of WMS 1.4 spec at OGC 
Darmstadt meeting if its on the table.
Discuss GeoSciML/OneGeology application profile that makes describeLayer 
mandatory, and output format options.

steve

Boisvert, Eric wrote:
> Yes, was emphasising it was a bad idea. I am concuring with Rob.
>  
> We struggled with this bit with GIN as well.  We resolved this one this one at the architecture level.
> For example, we have a well layer served by Nova Scotia from ArcIMS.  The regular 'GetFeatureInfo' of this particular service goes to ArcIMS and, as expected, returns the content based on the local schema.  When this layer is register in GIN, GIN provide access to this layer through a WMS mediator.  The mediator sit between the client and the Nova Scotia service and handles requests.  GetMap are routed to the original WMS or to an alternate one, depending of the scale (we have a pre-canned view of the whole province to avoid generator of a map made of hundred of thousand of points).  GetFeatureInfo are rerouted to mediated WFS request(s) that might or might not be transformed, depending of the info_format.
>  
> this one request a html view 
>  
> http://ngwd-bdnes.cits.rncan.gc.ca/service/gin/wms/mediator/px?VERSION=1.1.1&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&LAYERS=NovaScotiaWaterWell&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetFeatureInfo&STYLES=&EXCEPTIONS=application%2Fvnd.ogc.se_xml&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-66.526154%2C43.186423%2C-62.942051%2C45.851525&X=254&Y=287&INFO_FORMAT=text%2Fhtml&QUERY_LAYERS=NovaScotiaWaterWell&WIDTH=780&HEIGHT=580
>  
> this one is a GWML view
>  
> http://ngwd-bdnes.cits.rncan.gc.ca/service/gin/wms/mediator/px?VERSION=1.1.1&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&LAYERS=NovaScotiaWaterWell&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetFeatureInfo&STYLES=&EXCEPTIONS=application%2Fvnd.ogc.se_xml&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-66.526154%2C43.186423%2C-62.942051%2C45.851525&X=254&Y=287&INFO_FORMAT=text%2Fxml&QUERY_LAYERS=NovaScotiaWaterWell&WIDTH=780&HEIGHT=580
>  
> The HTML view is of course, just the GWML view going through a XSLT to create an HTML page (twice actually, because the log image is a SVG view)
>  
> So, from the WMS client stand point, it does not know/care how the layer is bounded to feature, the architecture decided it.  Obviously, this only work within GIN.
>  
> Eric
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de Simon Cox
> Date: ven. 2009-08-28 02:23
> À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr
> Cc: Robert.Woodcock at csiro.au; Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
> Objet : Re: [Auscope-geosciml]RE : OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> Yes - we know.
> I don't think RobA was actually advocating that solution, just pointing out
> that this is a common assunption and pattern.
> The reasons why it is not a good idea are legion, but are mostly related to
> applications with complex models. 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Boisvert,
> Eric
> Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2009 11:53
> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; 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: [Auscope-geosciml] RE : OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> this assumes that the WMS layer is a portrayal of a single feature type.
> Not convinced it's a good idea.
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de
> Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au
> Date: mer. 2009-08-26 22:25
> À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr
> Cc: Robert.Woodcock at csiro.au; Chris.Body at ga.gov.au Objet : 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090829/e3d55af4/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list