Air Quality Breakout, ESIP 2011 Winter Meeting

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Revision as of 10:24, 13 September 2012 by 157.55.35.53 (Talk)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

back to full ESIP Winter Meeting agenda | Air Quality Main Page

Contents

The Air Quality Workgroup will be meeting on Wednesday January 5 during the ESIP Winter Meeting.

Remote Participation

GoTo Meeting

URL for screen share:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/286518929
Audio:
Dial +1 (805) 309-0016
Access Code: 286-518-929

Meeting ID: 286-518-929


January 5, Wednesday

1:45-3:15 Eastern

Welcome, Introduction and Overview (5-minutes)

  • ESIP Winter Meeting theme: Evaluating and Maximizing the Impact of Earth Science Information

New Projects

  • if you have a newly funded air quality project and would like to present an overview, please add it to this list

Existing Project Networking Updates (5-min each)

Indepth Discussion Topics

  • Recommendations for Air Quality Cyberinfrastructure
    • Summary of recommendations generated by CyAir
    • Review and feedback

(scheduled break from 3:15-3:45 Eastern)

3:45-5:15 Eastern

Indepth Discussion Topics continued

  • GEO Mid-Term Evaluation
    • Summary of evaluation
    • Review and feedback
  • GEOSS AQ Community of Practice
  • New ESIP Air Quality Workgroup Chair/co-Chairs

Notes from Session

Meeting Minutes

  • Introductions
  • Stefan Falke
    • CEOS Atmospheric Composition Portal
      • Still in beta
      • Different tools for the display of data and metadata
      • Key activity has become interpreting and implementing standards
      • Need more documentation of lessons learned from the first implementation of the standards
    • CIERA
      • Community building from an emissions standpoint
      • Similar goals to ESIP
      • Data scope is divided into species, sources, spatial, and temporal
      • Set-up a Drupal site that provides data access tools, analysis tools, and communication about emissions.
      • Hope to work on emissions ontology
  • Rudy Husar
    • HTAP Data Network
      • Standardized air quality data shared over a service-oriented, loosely coupled network
      • At least three layers of digital interoperability:
        • The data model itself (netCDF)
        • Semantic constraints on data types (CF Convention)
          • The transmitted file (WCS Standard)
      • Discussed WCS and WFS services
      • Additional services create ISO or KML files for metadata or Google Earth
    • GEO AQ CoP
      • There are pushing and pulling driving forces for data to flow from provider to user
      • Provides a personal level of interoperability
      • As part of the GEO AIP, the community catalog of data has been provided through the GEOSS clearinghouse by data facets
      • A CoP Drupal website has been created
      • GEO can help drive integrating initiatives to get other providers on board
  • Stefan (con't)
    • AIP-3 Update
      • Focused on OGC sensor observation services and web processing services
  • Terry Keating
    • CyAir Briefing
      • Not centrally controlled, but with a central plan that multiple groups can take part in implementing
      • Looking for feedback from the air quality community and from the EPA management
      • Also connects users and providers
      • Found that data access is not easy
      • Recommendations
        • Develop a 'cookbook' on how to become more interoperable
        • Hire or designate and air quality community organizer/EPA liaison
        • Generate outreach and education information
        • Create a cyberinfrastructure of core air quality data systems
        • Create CyAir resource website
        • Provide cyberinfrastrucure-building tools and resources for data providers and data users
        • Develop a relatively simple governance structure and leverage other communities
  • Yana Gevorgyan
    • GEO Evaluation
      • Monitoring and Evaluation Framework - provides guidelines for the decision/evaluation process
      • Established an evaluation team to conduct evaluations which would begin with broad evaluations until the third evaluation, where a regular cycle would be adhered to
      • Found that stakeholders are happy with GEO, glad it's there
      • But, they haven't shown that they've done anything useful to the outside world (mainly users)
        • It doesn't meet their needs for data, information, and tools
        • Found that people think GEO co-opts projects that aren't entirely theirs
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox