# Presentation: 207868

## NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems Standards Endorsement Process

- November 14, 2006
- Richard Ullman
- Ming-Hsiang Tsou
- Co-chairs

## Motivation

- One initiative after another has stressed the need for interoperability standards.
- Many standards initiatives, both formal and grass roots have put forward specifications or demonstrated various ways to enable access to data.
- NASA, or NASA funded projects are often in the forefront of these activities.
- However, NASA participation in a standards development activity does not imply that NASA projects endorse the results of that activity.
- Need a way to identify the “standards that work” in the context of NASA’s Earth science research and applications data systems under the operational loads that NASA typically experience.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Standards’ Role in Achieving NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems Needs. 

- Future Data Systems Features (January 2004)
- Selection and management will emphasize flexibility and accountability over centralization.
- More distributed geographically, functionally and managerially.
- Ability to add new data system components, independently developed and independently managed without unduly perturbing existing systems
- Responsiveness to defined communities: Innovation to serve new community needs encouraged.
- Services to broad community.
- Diversity in implementation will be encouraged - with coordination at the interfaces.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

**Notes:**
More and more, scientists, projects, programs are being asked to make data available not only for their own use or even for known colleagues.  Science data sources are used in interdisciplinary research and in novel applications.

Data is expensive.  Observation systems and models represent significant investments by public institutions.  Increasingly the public is seeking to maximize 

Data systems develop rapidly and 

## Insights from “SEEDS” Analysis

- Interoperability does not require homogeneous systems, but rather coordination at the interfaces.
- Management can judge success based upon program goals rather than dictated solutions.
- example: degree of interoperability rather than use of particular data format.
- Communities of practice have solutions.
- Published practices that demonstrate benefit can grow ...
-  successful practice in specific community
-   broader community adoption
-   community-recognized “standards”

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## The Request For Comment Process

- Modeled after example of Internet “IETF RFC”.
- Tailored for responsiveness to NASA.
- Proposed standards are documented as specifications acording to SPG guidelines and submitted by practitioners within the NASA community.
- The Standards Process Group forms a Technical Working Group (TWG) to coordinate evaluation.
- What does “implementation” of this specification mean in the context of NASA Earth Science Data Systems?
- What constitutes successful “operational” experience?
- The community is invited by means of email announcement to comment on the specification and particularly to address questions formulated by the TWG.
- The TWG also identifies key stakeholders that are likely to have particular experience with the technology and solicits their opinion.
- The TWG reports to the SPG and the SPG makes recommendations for final status of the RFC.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## The Three Step Standards Process

- Proposed Standard

- Community

- Core

- Draft Standard

- Community

- Core

- Standard

- Community

- Core

- RFC

- Community

- Core

** ****Review of**
**Operation**

- Recommendation

-  SPG

- Evaluate Implementations and Community Response

- TWG

- Evaluate Implementations

- Stakeholders

** ****Review of **
**Implementation**

- Recommendation

-  SPG

- Evaluate Implementations and Community Response

- TWG

- Evaluate Implementations

- Stakeholders

** ****Initial Screening**
- Initial review of the RFC
- Provide RFC submission support
- Form TWG; set schedule

**The Three Step Standards Process**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## RFC criteria:

- Are there components (technologies practices) that if documented and more widely used would promote:
- Easier sharing or exchanging of data among distributed partners and users.
- Distributed systems development and sharing of software and technical expertise.
- Reducing the cost of developing or maintaining a system.
- Increasing the use of scientific data products and bringing more funding.
- Interoperability and enhancing innovation, collaboration, and computing performance.
- For identified technologies/practices, Is there a community of use that:
- Has experience in implementation and operation .
- Has leadership necessary to promote the advantage of wider use.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Benefit of publishing through the SPG

- Benefit to NASA data systems of community endorsement:
- NASA Earth science data management can rely on standards to achieve highest priority interoperability.
- Science investigators are assured that standards contribute to science success in their discipline.
- Benefit to community/project that proposes “RFC”
- Encourage consensus within the community.
- Grows use of common practices among related activities.
- Wider discipline community learns from successful practice.
- Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data by external discipline communities within NASA and outside NASA.
- Accelerate “evolution” of practices through better communication.
-  From: successful practice in specific community
-  To: broader community adoption
-  To: community-recognized “standards”

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## RFCs Status

- RFC-004 Data Access Protocol (DAP) 2.0:  The SPG reviewed community use of DAP (a.k.a. OPeNDAP) and found that the protocol has multiple interoperable implementations and has demonstrated operational effectiveness.  The SPG has recommended that NASA endorse DAP as a community standard.
- RFC-005 Web Map Service Implementation Specification (WMS) v1.3: The WMS is an Open Geospatial Consortium standard.  This RFC makes a case for WMS use by NASA data systems.  Comments received on implementation indicated that NASA data systems did not have sufficient experience with Version 1.3 implementation to make a recommendation for WMS 1.3 to be considered a NASA community standard.  The RFC was therefore published as a “Technical note”
- RFC-006 WMS V1.1.1: NASA stakeholders have have good experience with v1.1.1 implementation of WMS.  The RFC is now out for comment on use of WMS 1.1.1 in an operational environment.
- RFC-007 HDF 5.0: The underlying library and format of the EOS Aura standard products. This RFC is now out for comment on implementation experience.
- RFC-008 HDF5-EOS: The particular profile of HDF5 used by Aura standard products. This RFC is now out for comment on implementation experience.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## “In work” Candidate RFCs Status

- GeoTIFF: Members of the geoTIFF community have expressed a desire to use the NASA process for publication of a standard geoTIFF specification. Author identified but progress slow because of lack of funding.
- Aura DSWG data product standards:  The data systems working group for the Aura mission specification for mission standard products.  Publication of this as an RFC will enhance public and scientific use of these products. Author identified, but presently stalled.
- ECHO: NASA’s Earth science data metadata clearinghouse has a series of APIs for data providers, client developers and service providers.  Publication  of these APIs as a specification is proposed as technical notes. Not a present priority of ECHO development.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Conference Topics

- NASA HQ has developed a process for evaluating Working Group recommendations.
- How can the SPG work most effectively with this process?
- Our standards process has had mixed success in attracting critical review of RFCs and recommending community-led standards.
- How can our process be improved to learn from the experience with the few RFCs that we have published?
- NASA has formed a working relationship with Google, Inc with a goal of providing better public search of NASA assets.
- How can NASA Earth Science Data systems enable this partnership to further the goals of increased interoperability of NASA Earth Science data systems and interuse of NASA Earth Science data?

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Break-out Agenda

- Tuesday Nov 14
- 01:30 PM Standards Process - HQ steering process presentation & discussion
- with Martha Maiden, NASA
- 02:30 PM	RFC Status: HDF, WMS (others)
- 03:00 PM	SPG Process Refinement
- "Old Man Brown" at Madam's Organ in Adam's Morgan leave conference center at 6:30, travel by Metro.
- Wednesday Nov 15
- 08:30AM	Joint Working Group Meeting w/Reuse and Tech Infusion
- 10:30AM	Areas of potential NASA standards for Google/NASA Collaboration
- with Chris Kemp, NASA
- 1:30PM	Discussions Continued
- Google, RFC Future Steps, SPG Process
- No-Host dinner at Franklin's, Hyattsville

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## The Standard Process Group Standard ES-DSWG Music Event!“Old Man Brown” - at Madam’s OrganTuesday November 14

- 2461 18th Street NW,
- Adams Morgan,
- Washington, DC
- (202) 667-5370
- http://www.madamsorgan.com

**Directions: **
**Meet in the Conference Center Lobby at 6:30. We’ll car pool to Metro green line College Park Station, take Metro to Columbia Heights, then walk to Madam’s Organ (about 7 blocks)**

- http://www.oldmanbrown.com/

**The Standard Process Group ****Standard ES-DSWG Music Event!****“Old Man Brown” - at Madam’s Organ****Tuesday November 14**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Earth Science DSWG Standards Process

**Facilitate Data Systems Interoperability ****and Data Interuse**.
- Benefit to NASA data systems of community endorsement:
- NASA Earth science data management can rely on standards to achieve highest priority interoperability.
- Science investigators assured that standards contribute to success in their discipline.
- Benefit to community/project that proposes “RFC”
- Encourage consensus within the community.
- Grows use of common practices among related activities.
- Wider discipline community learns from successful practice.
- Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data by external discipline communities within NASA and outside NASA.
- Accelerate adoption of practices through better communication.
-  From: successful practice in specific community
-  To: broader community adoption
-  To: community-recognized “standards”

**The Process**
- Modeled after example of Internet “IETF RFC”.
- Tailored for responsiveness to NASA.
- Proposed standards are documented as specifications acording to SPG guidelines and submitted by practitioners within the NASA community.
- The Standards Process Group forms a Technical Working Group (TWG) to coordinate evaluation.
- What does “implementation” of this specification mean in the context of NASA Earth Science Data Systems?
- What constitutes successful “operational” experience?
- The community is invited by means of email announcement to comment on the specification and particularly to address questions formulated by the TWG.
- The TWG also identifies key stakeholders that are likely to have particular experience with the technology and solicits their opinion.
- The TWG reports to the SPG and the SPG makes recommendations for final status of the RFC.

**Status of Requests for Comments**
**November 14, 2006**
- RFC-004”OPeNDAP” recommended for endorsement - 2005
- RFC-005 “WMS 1.4” NOT recommended for endorsement - 2006
- RFC-006 “WMS1.1.1” Have received comment on operational experience.
- RFC-007 “HDF5” Have received comment on operational experience.
- RFC-008 “HDF5-EOS” Have received comment on operational experience.
- “Backtrack Search” - Have received draft of RFC,( ready for review?)
- “geoTIFF” Interest from community, waiting for RFC
- “Aura DSWG” Interest from community, no one available for RFC
- “ECHO APIs” Some interest from project, not priority.
- “ESMF”, “SWEET”, “netCDF” In conversation with communities.

**Earth Science DSWG Standards Process**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## end

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Crossing the Chasm DiagramGeoffrey Moore, 1999modified after Everett Rodgers, 1962

**Crossing the Chasm Diagram****Geoffrey Moore, 1999****modified after Everett Rodgers, 1962**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Crossing the Chasm DiagramThe NASA Chasm

- Innovative		Pragmatic
- Research/Demonstration	Mission Reliability/Stability

**Crossing the Chasm Diagram****The NASA Chasm**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Network Effect From Wikipedia

- The network effect is a characteristic that causes a good or service to have a value to a potential customer dependent on the number of customers already owning that good or using that service.
- One consequence of a network effect is that the purchase of a good by one individual indirectly benefits others who own the good - for example by purchasing a telephone a person makes other telephones more useful. This type of side-effect in a transaction is known as an externality in economics, and externalities arising from network effects are known as network externalities.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Responsibilities

- Community Leader
- Identify someone in their community who will document standard according to SPG guidelines.
- Work with the community to get an extended review of the proposed standard.
- SPG
- Assign “RFC editor” to advise on RFC document.
- Publish and publicize RFC
- Assign “TWG”, technical working group to organize community review and evaluate responses.
- Recommend action to NASA HQ.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Kinds of Practices Suitable for SPG

- Any data system practice that increases interoperability or interuse of data within a community or among communities.
- Standard - Documents Operational Use
- Tech Note - Builds community awareness;  sometimes a precursor to a standard
- Examples:
- Describe science content (e.g. Content standard for a level-2 precipitation product, surface reflectance product content)
- Describe interface (e.g. Data Access Protocol, Web Map Server)
- Describe metadata (e.g. DIF, ECHO)
- Describe File Format (e.g. HDF, GeoTIFF)
- Best Practices (e.g. File naming conventions, fast search algorithm for polar data)

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Successful RFCs will have

- Well documented standard specification
- At least two implementers.
- Demonstrated operational benefit.
- Strong community leadership to support and use standard
- Leadership in generating the RFC.
- Community willing/able to review
- Potential for “impact” and spillover to other communities

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Standards Process - HQ steering processQuestions for Discussion

- In providing a recommendation to the steering committee, what aspects or materials will be needed in order for the committee to make a determination?
- Are there additional items or criteria that apply to standards over other kinds of recommendations?
- How will decisions of the committee be disseminated through NASA?
- How will approval of standards be factored into selection criteria for future work (such as AOs, etc.)?
- Are there recommendations for what areas the standards process should focus?
- Areas that would benefit from lower cost dissemination of data?
- Areas that would benefit from lower cost systems interoperability?
- Areas that have developed improved data system interoperability or data inter-exchange or interuse that would be beneficial in wider NASA use?

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Standards Process Revision/Clarification

- 3 Types of Candidate Standards:
- NASA community developed standard used within at least one self defined community where the proposed standard has not been approved or adopted by an external standards organization AND where new implementations are expected to be developed from scratch, using the proposed standard RFC as the implementation specification.
- A NASA community developed standard used within at least one self defined community where the proposed standard has not been approved or adopted by an external standards organization AND where new implementations are not expected to be developed from scratch but use existing software libraries or code.
- A standard already approved by an external standards organization but is being proposed for use for the NASA Earth science community

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Standards Process Revision/Clarification

- 3 types of reviews that are potentially needed to evaluate a proposed standard:
- A detailed technical specification review that determines the quality, accuracy, and clarity of the proposed specification.  The detailed technical review ensures that implementers can use the proposed standard as an implementation specification for any future implementations with confidence.
- A “usefulness” user review that determines if the proposed standard is useful or helpful or necessary to the user to carry out his work.
- An operational review that determines if the proposed standard works in an operational setting in a NASA environment with NASA data.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Which Reviews?

- A proposed standard where implementations are expected from scratch using the proposed standard needs to have all 3 types of reviews.
- A proposed standard where implementations are expected using existing software libraries or code needs to have a “usefulness” user review and an operational review.  The technical spec review is optional.
- A proposed standard where the standard is already approved by an external standards organization needs to have a “usefulness” review and an operational review.  A technical spec review will not be done.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Reliance on “Evidence of Implementation” 

- The “Evidence of Implementation” document will define the NASA community where the proposed standard is used.  For that reason, the “Evidence of Implementation” document should be as comprehensive as possible, containing an exhaustive list of implementations as known.   The contacts listed in this document will be used as the starting point by the SPG to solicit reviews of the proposed standard.   Having an incomplete list of implementations or a very short list of implementations will imply that the community is very small or the proposed standard is not widely used.
-  To evaluate each proposed standard, the SPG will identify the “community”.  The initial set of stakeholders in the community is the contacts list from the “Evidence of Implementation” document.  The SPG can also identify other stakeholders to add to the list of community by any other means.  The SPG will contact the community for each review phase.  The SPG will also send a broad request for review through its public announcement list, soliciting reviews from the general NASA Earth science community and its partners.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Recommended and  Required vs Community and Core:

- A proposed candidate standard can be “Recommended” or “Required”.   This is a change from “Community” or “Core”.  If a standard is “Recommended”, then NASA Earth science data systems are strongly encouraged to implement or use the standard but compliance is not mandatory.  If a standard is “Required”, then all NASA Earth science data systems must implement or use the standard if applicable.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## Role of standards activities vs SPG process

- FGDC Standards Review vs SPG Review
- The NASA review for draft FGDC standards should be conducted by the appropriate NASA point of contacts and their established processes.  If a draft FGDC standard is input into the SPG process, then it can be input as a Technical Note RFC.  The SPG will send out an announcement to the spg-announce email list to publicize the Technical Note.  However, SPG will not conduct formal NASA reviews of the draft FGDC standards.  HQ has designated others with that responsibility.

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## NASA ES-DSWG & Google Discussion

**NASA ES-DSWG & Google Discussion**

- ES-DSWG Standards Process

## General Google interface discussion points:

- What is the big picture view of Google’s Geographic/Imagery vision?
-  Google Earth, Google Earth Enterprise Server, Google Maps, KML, "regionator”?
- What is Google’s vision of how they want to present NASA data:
- In search results
- In their client applications.
- Through “tools” to post/publish information from NASA servers.
- How do/should Google's APIs and formats fit into NASA ES Data Systems?

- ES-DSWG Standards Process