# Presentation: 037093

## Technology Infusion Working GroupMeeting Report

- Karen Moe, NASA/ESTO
- Rob Raskin, NASA/JPL
- Earth Science Data Systems Working Group Meeting
- College Park, MD
- November 14 - 16, 2006

## Activities

**Web Services Chaining Demo- Lessons Learned**
**Security in Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA)**
**Semantic Web Subgroup Report**
**Joint Working Group Session (with Reuse and Standards/Processes)**
**Capability Vision/ EOSDIS Vision Crosswalk**
**Future Activities - Evaluation of Emerging Technologies**
**Demos - Web Services and Semantic Technologies**

## Web Service Chaining Demo - Lessons Learned

- _What worked well_ and _what were the challenges_–
- WCS was a key interface standard
- WCS, WMS well known, helpful for asking for the service (interface into the external service) but you have to be careful understanding the meaning of what you get (service output needs interpretation).
- Wiki.esipfed.org light-weight and worked but not a UDDI
- Still a long way from goal of machine discoverable
- Compliance issues. Semantics of metadata a challenge, (e.g. using OWL for describing) Missing hierarchical description of services so we understand what the data is, what the quality is. Lots of nouns (naming) but fewer verbs (geo transformations)
- UDDI service registration in ECHO V8 (recent release) was not tried
- How to get insight into available services so people start using them
- It worked! SciFlo called all external services to create the air quality product; BPEL from Liping did same.
- Complexity builds quickly when you try to make it useful
- Feedback to OGC
- OGC SOAP versions WxS protocols not being used
- WCS was a key interface standard
- How to determine metadata to describe your service
- Simple query, access to data (as numbers), simple visualization

## Web Services Chaining Demo- Lessons Learned

**Web Services Chaining Demo****- Lessons Learned**

- Challenges / Lessons Learned
- Daunting semantic variation in service interfaces
- Many ways to describe a lat/lon bounding box, etc.
- We leveraged OGC WMS/WCS popularity by creating SOAP services with similar semantics
- Ultimately need standards, taxonomies, & semantic mediation
- Simple, modular XML standards (Microformats) are best
- GML is too large & complex for easy use
- Simple, flat service interfaces are more reusable
- Complex, deeply hierarchical XML input/output docs. are difficult to generate correctly & extract information from
- Should hide complexity whenever possible
- Demonstrated service chains were simple, but a good start
- More complex analysis & data fusion scenarios will be challenging
- Recommendations
- Put demo services in ECHO/GCMD
- Web services use case to drive ontology/taxonomy (from each group)

## Security in Service Oriented Architectures (SOA)

- Response to request from Kathy Fontaine on **SOA Security issues** for US-GEO guide document
-  White paper in 6-8 weeks
-  Address ESDS security risks (per type of data system, data holdings, services provided, resources used)
-    Denial of service attacks is of high concern
-    Provide NSF Grid experience with security approaches
- security differs per role: client, data, services
-   Levels of security (authorization/ authentication)
- Basic authorization (password access
- Virtual private network
- Globus (certification)
- Business driver for secure services, but complex solutions feed an industry to sell solutions
- Can’t always retrofit architecture for security

## Semantic Web Focus Session

- Semantic web roadmap
- Based on Web services roadmap
- Exhaustive list of definitions needed
- Seeded an ESIP Federation Cluster
- First meeting at upcoming Portland meeting

## Semantic Web Roadmap

**Technology**

-  Geospatial semantic services established

-  Geospatial semantic services proliferate

-  Scientific semantic assisted services

-  SWEET 3.0 with semantic callable interfaces via standard programming languages

-  SWEET core 2.0 based on best practices decided from community

-  Scientific reasoning

-  Reasoners able to utilize SWEET 4.0

-  Local processing + data exchange

-  Basic data tailoring services (data as service), verification/ validation

-  Interoperable geospatial services(analysis as service), explanation

-  Common vocabulary based product search and access

**Interoperable Information Infrastructure**

**Assisted Discovery & Mediation**

-  Metadata-driven data fusion (semantic service chaining), trust

-  Semantic agent-based integration

-  Semantic agent-based searches

-  Geospatial reasoning, OWL-Time

**Capability**

**Results**

-  Improved Information Sharing

-  Increased Collaboration & Interdisciplinary Science

-  Acceleration of Knowledge Production

-  Revolutionizing how science is done

-  RDF, OWL, OWL-S

**                  ****Current                    Near Term                  Mid Term          Long Term**

-  Autonomous scientific inference

-  Numerical reasoning

-  Semantic geospatial search & inference, access

-  SWEET core 1.0 based on GCMD/CF

**Vocabulary**

**Languages/ Reasoning**

**Output**

**Outcome **

**Semantic Web Roadmap**

## Capability Vision - EOSDIS Vision Crosswalk

- Crosswalk between Capability Vision and the EOSDIS 2015 Vision
- EOSDIS Evolution vision driven by need for operations cost reduction
- Possible gaps identified in ESDSWG vision
- Common search engine not specifically addressed by “Assisted Data/Service Discovery & Mediation”
- Need improved parametric search in Google to support Earth science
- Could publish indexes to search engines
- Fine-grained cost control not fully addressed by “Evolvable Technical Infrastructure”
- Need to specifically discussion modular architecture, component-level competition, peer-reviewed selection
- Infrastructures by definition need to be stable in some regards
- Infrastructure should not only be evolvable, but accommodate new uses (as roads have accommodated new vehicles)
- Community support, collaboration, and feedback missing
- Need to add
- Social networking, tagging, etc.
- Will use Wiki to flesh out vision components

## EOSDIS Evolution 2015 Vision Tenets

| Vision Tenet |  Vision 2015 Goals |
| --- | --- |
| Archive Management | NASA will ensure safe stewardship of the data through its lifetime.
The EOS archive holdings are regularly peer reviewed for scientific merit. |
| EOS Data Interoperability | Multiple data and metadata streams can be seamlessly combined.
Research and value added communities use EOS data interoperably with other relevant data and systems.
Processing and data are mobile. |
| Future Data Access and Processing  | Data access latency is no longer an impediment.
Physical location of data storage is irrelevant.
Finding data is based on common search engines.
Services invoked by machine-machine interfaces.
Custom processing provides only the data needed, the way needed.
Open interfaces and best practice standard protocols universally employed. |
| Data Pedigree | Mechanisms to collect and preserve the pedigree of derived data products are readily available. |
| Cost Control | Data systems evolve into components that allow a fine-grained control over cost drivers. |
| User Community Support | Expert knowledge is readily accessible to enable researchers to understand and use the data.
Community feedback directly to those responsible for a given system element. |
| IT Currency | Access to all EOS data through services at least as rich as any contemporary science information system. |

**Feb 3, 2005**

## Slide 10

## Slide 11

## Joint Working Group

- TRL for software/ web services
- Web service results may be suitable for a Tech note
- Clumping TRLs into 3-4 levels and applying meaningful labels might be useful
- “research, development, infusion” for technologies
- “beta, provisional, validate” for algorithms
- Dissemination of DSWG results
- ESIP Federation web site links to DSWGs
- New:  Journal of Earth Science Informatics
- Springer
- First issue in 2007 or 2008
- Peter and Rob are among the editors

## Evaluation of Emerging Technologies

- What are the new and emerging technologies that we should be looking at?
- What is our process for selecting technologies to evaluate?
- Technologies funded by AISR (low TRL)?
- Hot technologies?
- How do we identify and monitor new and emerging technologies?
- Need a way to help the community share info on emerging technologies
- Use the ESIP Federation wiki for collaborative tracking and assessment of emerging technologies
- Gartner analysis for Earth science community, but using a community-based approach
- TIWG could play a role to initiate and establish critical mass
- Need to consider technologies with potential unexpected uses, even without obvious fit into the capability vision, otherwise we may overlook key disruptive technologies
- Geoinformatics Conferences provide good source of candidate technologies
- Ubiquity of Google Earth
- Consumer technology, not scientific technology, but has science uses

## Technology Demos

- Demos
- Web services chaining
- SciFlo visual programming to create products using distributed data & services.  Brian Wilson
- DataFed Visual models with on-line data in a variety of formats wrapped for access by Web services. Rudy Husar
- BPEL  Visual models with data sources & services identified by searching catalog for compatible data types, producing virtual data products  Liping Di
- REACT.  Outliner-based workflow composition with flexible scripting of expressions to combine data, which may be allocated to client or server.  Eric Malaret
- Web service based data mining
- Deployment & orchestration of automated workflows at DAAC.  (Ability to move BPEL data mining workflow to data location) Ken Keiser & Chris Lynnes
- Semantic Web
- Ontology-supported knowledge discovery in geospatial semantic web. Liping Di.
- NOESIS: an ontology-based semantic search tool & resource aggregator.  Rahul Ramachandran & Ken Keiser.
- Ontology collaboration web site. Peter Fox & Rob Raskin.

## 2007 Plans

- Monitor hot technologies
- Generate Tech notes (Gartner-type analysis)
- Complete Web Services Roadmap
- Work with Semantic Web ESIP Federation Cluster
- Develop Semantic Web Roadmap
- Metrics of Web Services?
- Update capability vision based on TRLs of supporting technologies