# Presentation: 215299

## Standards and Interfaces (Future Missions)  (4/01/2002)

**Purpose of Study**
**Define a process or set of processes whereby SEEDS can develop or adopt and evolve and maintain standards and interfaces for data and information systems and services across the Earth Science Enterprise.**
**Process should capitalize on the methods and experience of existing relevant data systems standards bodies (e.g. ISO, OGC) and NASA programs (e.g. EOSDIS, ESIP Federation).**
**Study must involve the ESE user community in the definition and execution of the process.**
**Schedule**
**04/30/02 - Publish revised survey report based on consultants review and input and discussions at community workshop.**
**05/31/02 - Develop initial set of standards and interfaces process options based on analysis of survey findings in preparation for second community workshop.**
**07/31/02 - Publish revised process options, integrating workshop results and solicit general review and comment.**
**09/30/02 - Complete study report with options, recommendations and plans. ****	**

**Approach**
**Form a core team with representation from the data systems and Earth science community to manage the study subtasks and integrate the results.**
**Identify and enlist the aid of consultants, drawn from the community, who can contribute to specific subtasks.**
**Develop an outline of survey topics and identify and survey applicable standards organizations.**
**Review NewDISS Pre-formulation Document, ESIP Federation interface table, results of other study teams and other source material.**
**Develop and characterize options for a SEEDS standards specification and maintenance process.**
**Throughout the study tasks, publish and iterate results with the broader community via workshops and document reviews.**
**	****Status**
**Good progress on survey report - revisions and additions as result of reviews are being made.**
**Analysis phase to use survey to identify and characterize potential processes is underway.**

## Study Team Members

**Core Team:**
- Jean Bedet, SSAI, Study Team Coordinator
- Helen Conover, University of Alabama, Huntsville
- Yonsook Enloe, SGT
- Allan Doyle, International Interfaces, Inc.
- R. Suresh, Mayur Technologies
- John Evans, GST
- George Percivall, GST
**Initial set of consultants have been identified to represent community and stakeholders and are participating in study:**
- Jim Frew, UCSB
- Silvia Nittel, University of Maine
- Liping Di, GMU
- Lola Olsen, NASA/GSFC
- Doug Nebert, USGS/FGDC
- Howard Diamond, NOAA
- Chris Lynnes, NASA/GSFC DAAC
- Doug Jaton, USGS/EDC DAAC
**Can add consultants as recommended or as a result of participation in workshops and reviews.**

## Status Update - Standards and Interfaces Process Team

**Draft “Standards and Interfaces Survey Report” completed.**
- Summarized activities and accomplishments of several representative ESE projects and relevant standards organizations.
- Projects:  EOSDIS Version 0, EOSDIS Core System, ESIP Federation
- Organizations:  ISO TC 211 Geographic Information/Geomatics, Open GIS Consortium, W3C, CCSDS, FGDC, IETF
- Team members captured information in a standard format.
- Projects:  Description, Metadata Standards, Catalog Interoperability Standards, Data Access and Interoperability Standards, Data Format Standards, Data Exchange Standards, Standards in Progress and Recommendations
- Organizations:  Description, Standards Relevant to ES, Standards Work in Progress, Standards Process, Success/Failure, NASA Current Involvement and Recommendations
- Internal review of the draft document by team and consultants is underway.
- Have identified additional projects to include in survey such as SeaWIFS, GeoConnections/Canada, NOAA Data Server and possibly ENVISAT (not to be exhaustive but to broaden perspective).
**Next steps:**
- Generating list of candidate standards and interfaces to define scope of standards and interfaces to be addressed.
- Drawing from survey report, will incorporate results of Near-Term Standards Study team and will be structured around “as is” functional architecture.
- Developing process options that will be used to establish and evolve standards and interfaces.
- Also drawing from the analyses of the standards processes identified in survey report.

## Feedback from Community Workshop 1

**Workshop had limited participation from general ESE community.**
- Of those attending:
- Mostly data providers rather than end users (although some represent both).
- Focus on science users over applications users.
- Community representatives who did attend were very interested in SEEDS activities and actively engaged in discussion sessions.
- Also very familiar with projects and standards organizations that Standards and Interfaces Process Study Team had been reviewing (e.g. EOSDIS, ESIP Federation, ISO, OGC, W3C etc.).
**Participants did share their experiences and observations on standards, standard interfaces and standards processes which generally supported topics being addressed by Study Team.**
- Diverse and distributed set of data providers can be a barrier to access.
- Interest in NASA data but also NOAA and other federal agency data and international and commercial data providers.
- Strong statement that SEEDS should be addressing these broad access issues.
- Recognized need for different classes of standards, tied to supported functions, levels of service, community agreements, etc.
- Automated transfers from a producer to an archive would required strict interface definition and control.
- Concept of layering - a minimum interface at basic level and layer additional capabilities.
- Communities may choose to extend standards to meet their specific needs.
- Encouraged the study team to carefully review lessons of other projects and organizations.

## Feedback from Community Workshop 1 (cont.)

**Community representatives helpful in identifying or reinforcing issues of concern to study team.**
- Levels of service and associated criteria (e.g. data survivability,functionality, interoperability...) need to drive standards processes.
- Associated costs also need to be considered in the process.
- Deep community involvement in standards process is critical.
- Community acceptance of the results of the process means they need to drive the process.
- Community does not believe current efforts at engagement are sufficient.
- Building such acceptance will not be easy and will take time and effort.
- Definition of standards is not the only end product of a standards process.
- User support functions required to properly document standards and provide assistance and training on using standards.
- Training required at user and software developer level.
- Development of new tools or modification of existing tools that make use of standards and standard interfaces must be supported by SEEDS processes.
**Participants in breakout sessions provided useful input to general activities and approach of the formulation team.**
- Need to convey a better description of coordination among various study teams.
- Initially some confusion on respective focus of teams.
- Then, many references to the interdependencies of the team’s activities.
- Community needs to and wants to be actively involved in all formulation team efforts.

## Next Steps

**Finalize survey document for public release (April 30)**
- Good review and comments from consultants.
- Additional sections currently being written.
- Anticipate that survey will be a “living document” with periodic updates to capture additional material as a result of broader review and ongoing activities.
**Study Team meeting planned for those attending the OGC meeting in DC area (April 8).**
**Full Study Team meeting planned for late April.**
- Focus will be on characterization and evaluation of process options.
- Will also schedule some time with representatives of other study teams for cross-study coordination.
**Second “Community Meeting” scheduled for June.**
- Standards and interfaces will be a focus topic of the meeting.
- First opportunity to share process options in open forum.