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

Boisvert, Eric Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Sat Aug 29 17:57:49 EDT 2009


The bit of the spec you refer to says
"This operation returns the feature types of the layer or layers specified in the request, and the attributes can be discovered with the DescribeFeatureType operation of a WFS interface or the DescribeCoverageType of a WCS interface. "
 
 This says the WMS 'knows' what feature types it represents.  DescribeLayer can report many FeatureTypes, but does not help to figure out the context.  There are more than one feature type because the layer is mixture of type, or because there are alternatives (gwml:WaterWell vs gsml:Borehole).
 
> but something like CSW's abilty to specify different outputSchema
 

It's more than "schema", there are many ways to serialize the same GeoSciML; technically a collection of MappedFeature and GeologicUnit are both the same format. 

The other problem is that it seems to leave the construction of the WFS query to the WMS client. In our case (GeoSciML), all our WMS layers are technically MappedFeature.  Not terribly useful.  We could say they are GeologicUnit, but again, it does not tell the client application where is the geometry (GeologicUnit/occurence/MappedFeature/shape or someother wild path ?) so it can generate a useful WFS query.

This is why is settled for the mediated solution (the architecture knows, the client WMS does not know anything of any WFS feature type)

Eric

(BTW, the Documentation link in the left menu bar of the Twiki is broken

it links to http://www.cgi-iugs.org/GeoSciML/index.html <http://www.cgi-iugs.org/GeoSciML/index.html> )


________________________________

De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de stephen richard
Date: sam. 2009-08-29 12:31
À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: Robert.Woodcock at csiro.au; jj.serrano at brgm.fr; Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
Objet : [Auscope-geosciml] Summary: Re: OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs


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> <mailto: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> <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
	
	Cc: Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
	
	Message-ID:
	
	        <64596720D115484A9F1C2DC2D4CB0021597E4F5352 at EXCCR01.agso.gov.au> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
	
	Cc: Serrano Jean-Jacques <jj.serrano at brgm.fr> <mailto:jj.serrano at brgm.fr> 
	
	Message-ID: <31A9DA7C8AA6E949B09463F8E0A6DDFA944FD3 at RES005.brgm.fr> <mailto: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> <mailto: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" <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
	
	        <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
	
	Message-ID:
	
	        <40829B0E077C1145A6DE44D39B3830A9045E699272 at nerckwmb1.ad.nerc.ac.uk> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
	
	Cc: 'Serrano Jean-Jacques' <jj.serrano at brgm.fr> <mailto:jj.serrano at brgm.fr> 
	
	Message-ID: <A22A2CBF31934146BCCC64ED8E25D2FD at H07.jrc.it> <mailto: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
	
	  




More information about the GeoSciML mailing list