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

Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au
Sun Aug 30 18:39:56 EDT 2009


Eric is right about the problems with WMS self-awareness :-)

The architectural alternatives are:\

1) omniscient user
2) magic client
3) magic access mediator
4) magic semantic mediator
5) information architecture of the broader system realised in registry/register implementations

#5 is hard, because you have to have the registry component able to handle the sorts of questions you need to ask of interrelated register components, and everyone needs to be on the same page semantically - "subscribe not describe" is the mantra - i.e. only describe common bits.

On the other hand the other 4 seem infeasible beyond the most trivial cases, though you might get commonality across solution #3 morphing into an information architecture if you are disciplined enough.

Rob Atkinson
Team Leader, Interoperable Systems
CSIRO Land & Water
Ph (mobile) +61 419 202 973

-----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: Sunday, 30 August 2009 7:58 AM
To: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov; auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: Woodcock, Robert (E&M, Kensington); jj.serrano at brgm.fr; Chris.Body at ga.gov.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] RE : Summary: Re: OGC, WMS-WFS chaining, catalogs

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



_______________________________________________
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