Talk:Wiki Workspace

Go back to Start page for Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Names PLEASE DO NOT USE THE NAVIGATION BAR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE!

MSchulz: Questions about the Wiki

I think your idea with the wiki pages is great! For exchanging and establishing ideas on standards and tools for the intercomparison work in an interactive way. Thanks a lot for pointing us to this. At this point, in the beginning, it would be really important to choose a representative entry point. Which has some longer life time. which is even not linked too much to an individual organisation. Otherwise a discussion on standards makes no sense. I think also GEMS is not the right thing, since it is a project and by definition will end in some years. So I have some questions ( also to the colleagues):

1. Is ESIP the right federation to keep this? (I have not heard of it before)Isnt that purely American?

2. Wouldn't it be better to have for example an IGAC administrated wiki page? I must admit that I find it nice to just start and may be we can copy everything to another place once we found it.

3. Who will be the administrator and can create new pages for example in your initial set-up?

4. Who can change the general outline of these pages? I think there is always too much meta communication on how to edit and who has edited and when etc on these wiki pages.

5. Is there an administrator at ESIP who would react within a day or two if we had small wishes? Michael Schulz (MichaelSchulz) 13:21, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

......RHusar: RE: Questions about the Wiki

1. This wiki is part of the Earth Science Information Partners Federation, ESIP wiki. We chose ESIP since it is a more neutral place then our DataFed Project wiki. My colleague, Stefan Falke, and I are facilitating the Air Quality Cluster within ESIP and we are using this ESIP wiki extensively. However, since ESIP is an American organization, this is not appropriate as a neutral long-term workspace.

We like the Mediawiki software which is the grand daddy of the wikies incl. Wikipedia. While it's syntax is a bit arcane, it stands out as a rich and extensible and fast-evolving open-source software.

2. IGAC or other international organizations would be much better as neutral and long term hosts for this kind of work. I am sure IGAC would be interested. Last year when I talked to Tim Bates on a similar topic he said that IGAC is interested in this sort of facilitation and he pointed me to Sandro Fuzzi as a further contact.

3. This wiki is fully open for input. Every article page and its associated discussion page can be edited by any participant, not just an administrator. The wiki keeps track and allows recalling all previous versions, accessible through 'History' button. So the issue with the wiki management is which modifications should be restricted to certain users/managers.

4. To change content, click on "create account or log in" in the upper right corner. To edit article and discussion pages click the edit tab. Practice editing in the Sandbox.

5. We the community are the administrators. Most of the time we spend "administering" the wiki consists of organizing content, laying out navigation, transferring e-mails to discussion threads. These "management" activities could and should be distributed among appropriate members of the community (*See RHusar:WikiMaintance)|| (See More Help Topics).Rhusar 18:12, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

......MSchultz: 'Neutral' Workspace - WMO?

This is a good initiative and I believe the wiki platform might be a suitable way of collecting the relevant information and opinions. I agree with Rudolf that it is of paramount importance to establish such forum on a "neutral" site and ensure its longevity. Could it be that WMO would be a good place to deal with this? At a recent meeting Len Barrie mentioned that he is always looking for "plums that are ripe to pick", meaning that he would like to see WMO assume this kind of facilitating role, trying to set standards etc. Of course, a potential downside of this may be that an excessive bureaucracy could get involved and make life harder for everyone. Therefore, I would suggest a two-fold strategy: (1) tentatively approach WMO (through Len) whether this kind of initiative could be hosted and maintained there in principle, (2) continue the more informal discussions and soliciting of comments on one of the existing wiki pages for the shorter-term period (i.e. the next year or so).

It will also be important to raise the awareness and interest in the modelling community. A good starting point for this could be an IGAC newsletter article (*See MSchulz Response) quite soon, and an EOS and Eggs article in a few months time. Martin Schultz (MartinSchultz) 16:12, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

............RHusar: 'Neutral' Workspace - WMO?

Hey, Martin, I would agree that if we have to pick one neutral organization, WMO is the largest, most active and (through Len Barrie) has a strong internal driving force. I wonder though if there is a way to enlist/engage other neutral orgs, to be neutral-neutral .. multi-neutral :)??

... and doing that without (non-linearly) multiplying the weight of the bureaucracy. Yes, probably impossible in the real world but in cyber-space? Who knows? Rhusar 18:18, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

......BLawrence: CF Connection to WMO

We (CF) are already approaching WMO through WGCM (and the WMO metadata team)on behalf of CF. If you haven't already done so, it may be relevant if you were to read the white paper outlining the future plans for CF (under the news). We've had some feedback which is also linked from the above page ...

I'd really value some further feedback ... despite my best intentions that white paper hasn't turned from a draft into a plan (although some things have started)... so it's not too late for specific suggestions. In particular, if you're recommending WMO via Len Berry, which WMO group are we actually talking about, and why would that group make sense? BryanLawrence 17:32, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

.............MSchultz: Link to Len Barrie

Len Barrie is Chief of the Environment Division in the AREP department of WMO. He has been very active in the definition of Earth Observation systems (GCOS, IGACO, etc.). Furthermore he is member of the IGAC steering committee and in the advisory panel of the GEMS project. If you ask the atmospheric chemistry community, who they relate with WMO, then it is mostly him. Therefore, he is in an ideal position to act as a bridge from the AC community to WMO, and he seems quite willing to play this role. If our initiative of defining CF standards for chemistry models shall be successful, it will be quite important to ensure enough support from within the research community. By linking this to Len Barrie's WMO chair and also the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution task force, we may have a chance to gain enough momentum there. If this would rest solely at the WGCM I fear that the chemistry community would feel left out and be quite hesitant to join. Martin Schultz (MartinSchultz) 17:34, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

...................Blawrence:Link to Len Barrie

Hi Martin My apologies for the extreme delay in replying to this email. I know things have moved on, but I wanted to just make a couple of points.

Firstly, I see WGCM as the *initial* home of the CF governance panel, and no more than that.The newest draft of the white paper which I hope to get approved (by all the authors) "really soon now" makes it clear that the membership of this panel and the WGCM should move the parent body if that makes sense for the CF community ... CF is for the wider community - indeed, despite being a "modeller" myself, my involvement is really on behalf of the atmospheric observation community (and indeed aerosol and chemistry data are causing us problems at the BADC because of the lack of appropriate standard names). I would be concerned if any community felt disenfranchised!

While it seems that we have resolved a way forward for establishing the standard names in your community it would be helpful if your community were to get involved in the ongoing CF issues.

What is clear now is that we will try and establish the governance structure in the CF white paper over the next few months, but we do want wide representation on both the committees and the governance panel. You will (I hope) have noted that the committees are supposed to be self-selected ... so hopefully some of those to whom this email is copied will get involved.

As far as the governance panel goes, it sounds like Len should definitely be on it (if he wishes to be ...). Could someone please give me his contact details, and/or introduce him to the CF white paper and the issues? Regards,BLawrence17 June 2006

...................Rhusar:Link to Len Barrie

Hello Bryan (and GALEON, GSN, All): Your thoughtful response and clarifications regarding the CF group are highly relevant to this emerging Air Quality/Chemistry Interoperability group. Below are some of my own thoughts on the relationship between this aerosol/chemistry interoperability group, the CF group and other international interoperability groups.

The binary netCDF data structures are just as useful for chemistry as they are for meteorological data storage and transfer. Therefore its adaption and promotion in the atmospheric composition community is highly desirable. Indeed, the Air Quality/Chemistry Interoperability group intends to use netCDF for aerosol and chemistry data exchange.

The addition of the CF convention significantly enhances netCDF by providing standardized metadata as well as structural constraints to the very flexible netCDF formatting. Your invitation that our aerosol/chemistry workgroup joins the CF committees is highly appreciated. Hopefully, someone with backgrounds like Christiane Textor and Martin Schultz would be willing to participate.

My own enthusiasm for netCDF-CF is somewhat tempered by the reality that WMO and others have their favored data models, formats, and naming conventions. Hence, forcing a wholesale transition to netCDF-CF may be counterproductive at this time. One interoperability alternative we might consider, is the use of mapper and adapter software components as mediators between data 'standards'.

The netCDF-CF convention encourages the use of standard web-based data access interfaces such as the OGC Web Coverage Service (WCS): Data access is specifying the parameter, 3D bounding box (xyz) and time range. In fact, as part of the Geo-interface to Atmosphere, Land, Earth, Ocean, NetCDF (GALEON) interoperability experiment, an international workgroup led by Ben Domenico of Unidata is augmenting the WCS standard to include netCDF-CF.

Another voluntary workgroup is the GEOSS Services Network (GSN) coordinated by the OGC's George Percivall. Through GSN, a series of demonstrations are being prepared under the theme "The User and the GEOSS Architecture". The July 30th workshop and demo in Denver will highlight air quality and climate change.

The Air Quality/Chemistry Interoperability group is already established an effective link to the CF group through the Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions led by Christiane Textor. However, my perception is that international organizations such as WMO have broader interoperability needs, beyond CF. For example, WMO is interested in improving the overall data flow between the WMO-GAW Data Centers and also a better data utilization by their user communities.

Hence, it may be beneficial to establish partnerships between the Air Quality/Chemistry/CF group to other complementary international workgroups such as GALEON and GSN to provide standards-based approach to broader "solutions", e.g. standard formats and metadata ( e.g. netCDF-CF), standard data access services (e.g. WCS, GALEON), reusable processing services and interoperability demos/testbeds (GSN). This combination would allow the creation of loosely coupled, user-oriented software for generating actionable knowledge from the immense raw data pool.

I see a favorable alignment of stars for the realisation of these possibilities through the confluence of these technologies. Conceivably, many of the international organizations, programs and agencies such as WMO, GEOSS, could be convinced of these opportunities. Of course, it is up to us, the pro-active community to make our case.

Given a favorable feedback to this somewhat grandiose group linking attempt, I would be happy to prepare a better organised set of links to the above interoperability groups - and others suggested by the addressed community. As an initial step toward such linking, I'm posting this message to the GALEON and the GSN mailing lists as well as to the Air Chemistry Interoperability wiki discussion page. Cordial greetings to all, Rhusar 00:13, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

CTextor: Wiki? If so which?

I agree that a discussion on the guidelines for chemistry and aerosol names is needed in order to satisfy the needs of as many people as possible. And this is a good start!

A wiki page for this discussion would be very useful, but we should agree on only one page of the two I am aware of: 1)from Bryan Lawrence, or the 2)Talk:Air_Quality/Chemistry_Naming_Conventions Rudulf Husar has set up this wiki page "Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions".

As a first step I will now go through the material I gathered, write up a proposal for a list of new names, which can serve as a basis for these discussions, and send it to the wiki page we agreed on. ChristianeTextor 16:05, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

......RHusar: Comments on Wiki Maintance

Thanks for bringing us up to date on the on the CF naming for Air Chemistry topic. A few comments and a suggestion.

It appears that the wiki is an agreeable tool to conduct much of the communication, cooperation and coordination for this work group
However, as Michael Schulz properly notes, such a work-space (1) should be at a 'neutral' web-space and (2) have assurance for longevity.
We are not in position commit to the long-term physical maintenance of the wiki site. Also, we are definitely not equipped to be managers/editors of a wiki contents.

Nevertheless, our view is that progress along the CF naming conventions is a necessary step toward broader interoperability, the same way as netCDF is for binary data encoding, and OGC Web Coverage Sevice(WCS) is for universal data queries. Within our own small group, we have 4-5 projects and collaborative activities that could benefit from these CF naming extensions. I am sure that most of us could use these conventions well beyond the current HTAP applications.

So, we would like to help bootstrapping this effort primarily through our accumulated tools/methods and experience in wiki-aided collaboration.
One possibility is to start with an experimental wiki site, and then transferring the contents to the neutral long-term site ASAP.
With the web-based wiki, 'managing' the contents (whatever that means for a wiki) could be transferred immediately to your group.

I am sure there are many viable alternative paths to pursue this, so please consider the above simply as a friendly offer for pooling resources and collaboration. (See RHusar:Questions on the wiki)Rhusar 16:08, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

...... MSchulz: ISPRA Meeting, March 2006

For your information, please find attached a report from a small workshop held in Ispra in March on cooperation among tracer intercomparisons. (sorry for double posting). Please note:

1) that indeed participants agreed to make an IGAC article from that workshop, with the idea to announce standards. And I volunteered to put a small article together. I asked already IGAC and the next possibility is some issue in mid/late autumn. If you wish to contribute to the writing please drop me a short notice. (*See MSchultz Comment)

2) that Christiane Textor volunteered to follow-up (if not co-ordinate a first suggestion) the CF naming requirements for aerosol species and reactive gaseous components. We had the feeling that this should happen in this spring to help in some upcoming intercomparison activities, such as HTAP and AeroCom II. (*See CTextor Response)

3) Hosting/coordinating the CF info and wiki discussion at PCMDI (of course) or WMO would be excellent. It would be nice if some working web solution would be settled soon. Meanwhile I think Rudolfs wiki is a very good place to get it going for the aerosols and reactive components. Maybe there is more out there, then what we are aware of. Michael Schulz (MichaelSchulz) 16:15, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

......BLawrence: CF Website Prototype

PCMDI are in the process of configuring a new set of CF web pages including discussion for a (and possibly task tracking software) ... so in the very near future we expect the management of CF name changes etc to be more than just this mailing list. (Folks will recall that both PCMDI and BADC are contributing effort to try and get CF rolling forward without relying on the contributions of the original authors).

Hopefully Kyle is reading the list, and can give us an eta for wider use of the prototype he's got going at the moment. I think realistically though, Alison (based in the UK) and Kyle (based on the west coast of the US) will need to have a face-to-face chat about how to manage ongoing CF modifications before we get things working really well, and that's planned for mid-June.

If in the mean-time groups want to use wikis to get ideas sorted, then excellent. BryanLawrence 16:09, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

............KHalliday: CF Website Prototype

Indeed, the new CF website prototype is up and running. It only contains a subset of the content in the current website, but it should provide a good opportunity to give feedback about the direction we're heading. In particular, I'd encourage you to look at the message board system (which would replace the cf-metadata mailing list) and the standard names table. The website allows members to actively contribute using a Wiki-like content management system. If you're interested in obtaining a username and password to try out the message board and page-editing features, please let me know, and I'll create an account for you.

Another feature that you may find to be quite useful is the "live search" capability. If you type some text into the search box in the upper-right corner (try "air pressure", for example) and wait for a few seconds, several search results should pop up beneath the box. This could be a powerful way to search standard names. We don't yet have an ETA for officially switching to the new website, but your feedback, especially in the early stages, is very valuable! KyleHalliday 16:19, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

CTextor: ESIP Wiki as Temp Location

I will go ahead now and propose standard names for aerosols and chemicals based on the ideas of PRISM, IPCC/ACCENT, RETRO and AEROCOM. I have contacted Peter van Velthoven, the most recent version is online.(Comment by JGregory) We will use the wiki page at ESIP for a start Talk:Air_Quality/Chemistry_Naming_Conventions and then later possibly move to a more "official" site. It would be very nice to have a link on the CF web site to the wiki to encourage a wide community to contribute. Is this possible? ChristianeTextor 18:11, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

RHusar:Draft Letter to Len Barrie, June 4, 2006

Based on several discussions it was suggested that our ad hoc interoperability group (IG) informally contacts Len Barrie at WMO. Below is a draft letter for that purpose. Question: Is this ok? Can we do a group signature?

Recall from Terry Keating's note that Len Barrie and Andre Zuber are working with Oystein Hov on related topics. They would need to be informed about our activities as soon as possible (by Friday, June 9 or before?). The group is cordially invited to comment and/or edit this letter.

Hi Len,

This is a heads-up on a 'virtual workgroup' activity focusing on the interoperability of air chemistry/aerosol data systems. The boundaries of the WG activities and its affiliations are yet to be established. The thread linking the members is a common goal to improve the interoperability of air chemistry/aerosol data systems through international standards, protocols and conventions.

Following suggestions from Martin Schultz and Terry Keating, this is an informal note simply to make you aware of this activity. The virtual workgroup is still not a stable entity, but we thought that you might be interested in having a look at this near-spontaneous group-cluster formation process. The interoperability group's current work space is an open collaboration website, where any participant can add/modify and discuss the content. In other words, it is a "bottom up" approach to collaboration driven by the participants initiatives. The base activity include: (1) collecting and maintaining resources, including linkages to various interoperability groups, (2)adapting standards and protocols for air chemistry, and (3) documenting interoperability through specific demonstrations. It is also a forum for unconstrained discussion. For example, you may note a few discussion items are referring to WMO as (1) a neutral agency and (2) that might be interested in facilitating the promotion/proliferation of interoperability.

The WG was initially formed in the context of the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants Task Force headed by Terry Keating and André Zuber. The first area of focus was to improve interoperability of hemispheric chemical model outputs for purposes of inter-comparisons and evaluations. An area of early work group activity is on Standard Naming for Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosols, spearheaded by Christiane Textor. We recognize that within WMO and other organizations there are a number of data standards in use. Our group is pursuing netCDF-CF conventions since it is particularly suitable for encoding multidimensional, gridded model outputs. In this, we are benefiting from the active participation of two of the CF convention custodians, Jonathan Gregory and Brian Lawernce.

Based on the initial enthusiasm and evidence, there may be tangible interoperability advances by the end of Summer, possibly ready for presentation/demonstration by the January HTAP meeting in Geneva and other international fora.

Best regards,

Rudy Husar, Martin Schultz, Michael Schulz, Christiane Textor
Rhusar 10:43, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

.....TKeating:Re:Draft Letter to Len Barrie

Rudy et. al., Just a note to let you know that André and I are working to set up a teleconference with Len Barrie for June 22 or 23 to discuss the logistics and substance of the Geneva workshop next year. It would be good to share something in writing with Len before this teleconference so that we can discuss it briefly. Len will not be in Moscow next week at the TF meeting. However, he has had conversations with Oystein Hov and has asked André and I to talk with Oystein during that meeting. I'll let you know what I learn. Thanks to all for your efforts, TKeating 2 June 2006 (EDT)

.....Michael Schulz:Re:Draft Letter to Len Barrie

Hi Rudolf, You can well add my name as signature. I would probably have made a shorter email, but I think your email would prefectly fit the purpose. The most important is to inform Len. There was also a suggestion during the recent Thessaloniki ACCENT model benchmarking and quality assurance workshop to host a website on tools for model intercomparisons on the ACCENT web page at NILU. I do not know if that will become reality. And - however, WMO would be much better. ciao Michael Schulz14:23, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

.....Martin Schultz:Re:Draft Letter to Len Barrie

Dear all, and particularly Dear Rudy, thanks for your initiative and taking it up to write a letter to Len Barrie. I like the draft and would be pleased to see my name associated with it. However, I was wondering whether it wouldn't make more sense to first try and get Len on the phone where it is easier to find out how much he knows and what he could and would be able to do. He might well reply by saying that we should send him some material, and this is where the letter comes in. But we may want to re-emphasize some other aspect based on what he says first hand. If everyone agrees, I suggest that you, Rudy should try to contact him - alternatively, Christiane or myself could give this a try. Best regards, Martin Schultz14:23, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

.....CTextor:Re:Draft Letter to Len Barrie

Dear all, Again I like to thank Rudy for taking the initiative to write this letter which I would be happy to sign. I very much like the general 'melody' of it, but given the tight schedule of Len Berry I would strongly suggest to shorten it a bit so that it would fit on one sreen.

The WMO promotes the BUFR and GRIB formats, not netCDF so far. I think it would be a good idea to contact Len to explore what he thinks of this format, and to explore where he would appreciate more information, as Martin wrote earlier. I would be glad to contact him on this issue if you agree. Best regards, Christiane Textor14:23, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

..........RHusar:Comments on Re:Draft Letter to Len Barrie

Dear All, Thank you for your favorable comments regarding the communication with Len Barrie.

Martin has suggested to call Len first. At this time, I'm inclined to send out the letter as modified by the inputs from Christiane and Michael. It turns out to some extent the ground for this letter has already been prepared by Terry and Andre. They have been working with Len on the preparation of the January HTAP workshop at WMO/GEOSS in Geneva and are aware of this model inter comparison work group. So, in several recent conversations Terry has encouraged me to describe our activities to Len.

I have followed Christiane and Michael suggestion to shortened the letter. Also added a sentence on other data standards ("We recognize that within WMO and other organizations there are a number of data standards in use.") As before your recent feedback has been entered on the wiki.

I also took the liberty of highlighting three base activities for our workgroup : (1) collecting and maintaining resources, including linkages to various interoperability groups, (2) adapting standards and protocols for air chemistry, and (3) documenting interoperability through specific demonstrations. We can use the wiki page on interoperability to collectively develop and realize these thoughts. The letter to Len has been sent out. Regards, Rhusar 14:23, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Rhusar:Phone Call to Len Barrie

Hi, I talked to Len Barrie about our ad hoc, grassroots, interoperability workgroup. Of course, our carefully crafted e-mail to Len and Oystein Hov was about halfway in his inbox pile, so he did not have a chance to look at it, but he said he will. (Martin, you were right. I could/should have called him.)

Overall, his response to our overture was very favorable and he was happy about the informing call. He also said that keeping Oystein Hov in the loop is important since he chairs the GAW Working Group on Environmental Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry

Interoperability is indeed high on their agenda. Of course his eye is on the needs of the GAW program which has four data centers. Enhancing the data flow between and out of those centers through improved interoperability is of interest. If our workgroup could help out the GAW data centers, it would be a definite plus. There is an addtional message to be conveyed to you all:

In the past, weather models were considering only the physical atmosphere. Also, the assimilation of the observed meteorological variables nudges those models close to physical reality. WMO through its extensive sensor networks and communication infrastructure has been providing most of the assimilated met observations. The more recent (and future) weather models incorporate chemical composition as an integral part of the weather, both as a cause and an effect. Therefore, atmospheric composition observations will also be assimilated into the chemical modules. WMO perceives that its existing infrastructure for meteorological data collection and delivery would be a natural platform to ingest the chemical and aerosol observations. However, they recognize that the atmospheric composition data are much more diverse in terms of providers, number of parameters, persistence, reliability, etc. Interfacing the varied, distributed data sources with the WMO system will demand much higher level of interoperability.

Len also pointed out that he offered hosting the January HTAP meeting at WMO with focus on information systems. He also confirmed that interoperability of data systems is a significant agenda item. Tomorrow, June 22, Terry Keating, Andre Zuber, Oystein Hov, and Len Barrie will have a telecon to discuss that meeting and someone will let us know about the outcome. It appears that members of our workgroup could be natural and active participants of the January HTAP meeting.

OK, Len is now aware of our group activity. My reading of the situation is that we can count on his support provided that we contribute to his GAW-related activities. Also, adding composition (or chemical weather) into the operational, physical models is great news for the HTAP program! No need to run the physical and chemical models as two loosely coupled operations. Needless to say, bringing together the physical and chemical weather modeling and observations makes the CF chemistry extension the way to go.

I know I took liberties in both paraphrasing and interpreting Len's comments. However this is only one person's summary. Hopefully others in this group will offer interpretations and suggestions for the next steps. I see an interesting period coming up for the evolution of our workgroup, see you on the wiki. Rhusar08:09, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

With holidays

Hay god sites!!!!!!!!!!! AVTOR SENKS