Difference between revisions of "Talk:GEOSS AIP AQ Scenario"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
(Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- ~~~~)
(Reverted edits by 65.52.104.89 (talk) to last revision by Rhusar)
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Change in AQ Scenario Development Leadership -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 00:24, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
[[/Archive 1]]
 +
== Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 3 February 2008 (EST) ==
  
Rudy: Lots of things changed in the last dayThe new AIP Contact is John White, AIRNow team, So, please work with John between now and the workshop.  I will also be involved and will lend a hand as much as possible.
+
Hello Dr LeDrew, I note from George Pecivall's schedule that you will be discussing the UIC/ADC Collaboration at the Ispra AIP workshop. Our air quality community appreciates that ADC and your UIC Committee (Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, and others) is pursuing a strengthened  UIC/ADC connection. The incorporation of an Air Quality
 +
scenario into the Pilot is an outstanding opportunity to contribute to that effort as part of a domain-specific Pilot.
  
===Re: Change in AQ Scenario Development Leadership -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 00:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)===
+
For your information, the self-organizing group that has prepared the AIP Pilot - Air Quality Scenario appears to be an emerging "Community of Practice" interested in Air Quality applications using the GEOSS Architecture and User Interface Committee principles. A slide from [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/3/35/08_02_02_AIP_AQ_scenario_CommPractice.ppt John White's presentation] at Ispra has the relevant links. The Air Quality group is keenly interested in perusing and strengthening UIC/ADS link in this scenario through the continued development of the principles and methods for Communities of Practice - and testing those in this Air Quality Pilot.  
Hello Phil, Thanks for the update. Please note that George Percivall will need to know that John White will be attending the Ispra JRC Meeting. Since there is an AIP telecon on Jan. 22, would it be possible to talk about the AIP on Monday?  In the mean time, at George's request we will be adding background material to the OGC AIP website pertaining the Air Quality scenario.
+
Input and guidance from Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, George Percivall and others will be appreciated. Cordially, Rudy Husar
 
 
== ESIP Participation in Scenario Development -- [[User:TKeating|TKeating]] 00:27, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
Phil et al.,Rudy and other ESIP folks are interested in the 'GEOSS Scenario' for the Ispra meeting. This group would like to help out with this...  I've cc'd a few people.
 
 
 
== Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 00:31, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
AQ Scenario and Workspace: The air quality scenario for the Ispra Workshop will be maintained on the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349 OGC Site]. In addition, wiki workspace for the development of the AIP Air Quality Scenario has been established on the ESIP Wiki. The community is encouraged to contribute their ideas here.
 
 
 
===Re: Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:StuFrye|StuFrye]] 12:27, 23 January 2008 (EST)===
 
 
 
There are many scenarios that cut across discipline areas, but which can be supported by the same set of tools and sensors.  The scenarios need to be constructed so that they can be demonstrated on a more global scale than under the AIP phase 1.  Restricting the scenario to a single region and single event does not show how the GEOSS offering scales to a global application, so we need to structure the scenarios to take advantage of the global nature of many of our tools and sensor platforms.  Air quality assessment should be a combination of modeled results and observation measurements. There should be successive interaction between the models and the observation capabilities so that a feedback loop between the two can be demonstrated.  Air quality models should be structured so they accept real observations as well as simulated data as starting point inputs.  For smoke from wildfires, the starting point can be calculated by satellite observation from MODIS, Landsat, EO-1 and others.  A centroid calculation needs to be provided as a Web Feature Service that would feed the model with fire start locations from these satellites. The model should produce a smoke map or visualization of the progression of a plume.  Predicted map should be compared to actual images acquired via sensor web autonomous triggers.  The image data should further be processed to create a smoke product...especially the EO-1 Hyperspectral data...as a Web Processing Service.  The discovery of these capabilities should be provided by user friendly portals, catalogs, clearinghouses, and registries.  The Components and Services Registry needs to be integrated with the Standards registry so they stay in synchronization.  The registries should be automatically harvested by the portals to construct the GEOSS offerings.  The Portals should also harvest clearinghouse and catalog data instead of being constructed by hand from survey responses supplied by participating organizations.  Scenarios should include unmanned robotic sensor platforms and in-situ continuous readout sensors as well as static data sets for mash-ups and visualization mapping.
 
 
 
====Re: Re: Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 14:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)====
 
Very good points, Stu!. The suggestion to make the scenario applicable to any region is indeed appropriate, since (1) Smoke from major fires occur over many areas of the world (2) many of datastes come from the same source (e.g. satellite, global surface weather obs); (3) the sensory-motor functionality, detection-assessment-action, is quite common to all regions and (4) sharing and integrating the resources and methods into a System of Systems is in the spirit of GEOSS. Also, iterative linking of smoke observations and models through data fusion and assimilation into models is also a very important a timely suggestion. Lets see what the observation and modeling communities can do to raise ''interoperability'' to the next level (obs-model).
 
  
===Re: Wiki Workspace - Attach this discussion to pilot scenario page??? -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 18:38, 25 January 2008 (EST)===
+
===Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 19:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)===
Rudy, Stefan, Everyone - how about we move this very useful discussion from here to the discussion page attached to the GEOSS AIOP Pilot Scenario page?  Seems this might be a lot more straightforward. Thoughts??
+
Hello George, Doug, Josh, This is to thank you for the opportunity make a short presentation on Air Quality Data Systems and the GEOSS Architecture at the March OGC TC meeting in Stl. Louis. Your feedback and encouragement to seek closer linkage with the OGC and GEOSS activities is appreciated. As part of the preparation for the GEOSS AIP Air Quality Scenario, we hope to engage our emerging Community of Practice (CoP) to refine the ideas on how to interface the existing AQ data systems with the GOSS Core Architecture as well as with the work of the ADC and UIC Committees. Any additional feedback you may have will be well received.
  
== Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 00:55, 25 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
====Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:ELeDrew|ELeDrew]] 20:00, 22 April 2008 (EDT)====
 +
Greetings:
 +
Do you have time for a phone call before tomorrow pm?  Jerry Johnston, Hans-Peter Plag and I have a telecon then to finalize the May 5 workshop agenda in Toronto.  Jerry just found out, and it didn't click for me, the work you have been doing on the ADC call for participation for the Air Quality Scenario, and it might be the best case study for our work.  Basically we want participants to form small groups of actors to fill out the registry tables of Hans--Peter (separate email sent to you after this) from the users perspective.  I see you are registered, so perhaps you can help mould this to be of benefit for you. I have just talked to George Percivall.  I have called John White but he is not at his phone at the moment, but I copy him.
 +
Ells
  
I've added / fleshed out a number of items to the scenario wiki.  A theme I am trying to build in there is that the public are relevant decision makers for AQ problems during a fire. Media is an essential bridge to the public.
+
====Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 20:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)====
 +
Ells, In response to your note, I begun filling in the tables rows for Users, Applications and User-App Links.  http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Image:UIC_Air_Quality_Tables.doc  The AQ cast in the distribution list is encouraged to edit these tables. I will also continue to do so... we can discuss this on the [[2008-03-04:_GEOSS_User_Interface_Meeting%2C_May_6-8%2C_Toronto|GEOSS UIC Toronto wiki page]] shortly. For others, the most concise version of the AQ AIP Scenario is in this PPT http://www.ogcnetwork.net/system/files/08_02_03_AIP_AQ_scenario_jw.ppt. The full 'organisational memory' of our workgroup is on the [[GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario|wiki]].
  
I've uploaded a link [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/5/51/EPA_LessonsLearned_-_SoCalWildfire2007.pdf here] and in the Scenario wiki to a one page white paper that John White and I wrote about AirNow during the S. Calif. 2007 fires. (This paper is submission to a USGEO paper on the USG response to the fires.)
+
Looking at the tables, a key consideration is that the AQ Pilot  is  geared toward solidifying the networking infrastructure  which will be able to support  the  needs of '''multiple AQ Applications.as well as  multiple users'''. Also, we have been considering the full array of stakeholders in the value chain from data providers to processors, mediators ... to the 'end users' of the information systems.
  
===Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:JWhite|JWhite]] 14:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)===
+
==Ispra Meeting Report -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]] 13 February 2008 (EST)==
This echoes what I was thinking...so I am with you.  Others may can provide a better GEO spin?
+
Hi all.  Just wanted to let you know the ADC meeting went well.  There was about a dozen attendees at the Air Quality and Health Session (Frank Lindsay has the actual list) and we walked through the scenario that was developed on the ESIP wiki. We received some feedback and the good thing was no gaps were identified. There was no objection to any of the areas outlined in the scenario. The action items resulting from these discussions are to: 1) revisit and finalize the Air Quality and Health Scenario if we feel it is needed (we rushed up to the last minute),  2) Identify other organizations or potential GEOSS users to get additional input, feedback, and buy-in (i.e., obviously others were not at the meeting, not included in the GEOSS loop - so can we reach out to them to see if they can provide input/feedback - such as EEA), and 3) Work with the GEO UIC to finalize scenario (get their input - see email thread
 +
below) for the upcoming CFP in March 2008.
  
===Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 14:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)====
+
An additional action item is to work with Dr. Ellsworth LeDrew (below), the other co-chair of the GEO UIC, in developing a one day workshop/demonstration at the upcoming GEO UIC meeting in Toronto, Canada specifically for the Air Quality and Health Scenario. The GEO UIC wants to highlight the Air Quality and Health Scenario to its
David:  Good comments!  I'll leave it to Rudy and John as to how best to incorporate them, but I think your comments are really at the root of
+
members to show the progress GEOSS is making.
the whole scenario. You made me think of a few comments of my own.  I believe someone on one of the ADC calls pointed out the need for "large scale" scenarios, i.e. scenarios that cross national boundaries and are globally applicable.  I wonder if we might take a lesson from the Alaska  wildfire example, which Jim Szykman has examined in great detail.  That is almost a trans-national event, even though Alaska is technically a US state. In that scenario, the fires started far from the typical population centers of the US, yet the ground-level impacts were felt in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky and maybe Georgia and Alabama. So, to me that says we should include transport in the scenario.  That automatically brings in satellite data -- both met and air quality -- and perhaps even a "fire detection" function.  The SERVIR case study from May 2007 is also an interesting one.  Basically, a smoke event ocurred in Central America.  Some thought it was a "toxic cloud" coming over from Africa.  SERVIR was able to quickly dispel that notion using back-trajectory models and visible sat. imagery.  So, it was attributed to local burning.  However, there was not an "AIRNow-like" component by which to issue any public health info.  Lastly, I wonder if we should include public health information in the scenario.  It is far-fetched, but I think it should be part of "the dream".  I would end the scenario with an examination of hospital admissions, doctor's office visits, etc.   That would allow a feedback loop for future scenarios in which better public information might lead to fewer hospital admissions.  The only thing is -- do we have health agencies in GEO?  Not sure. -- Phil
 
  
====Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 14:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)====
+
As an aside - the other benefits gained during the meeting is a better understanding of international standards (for the AIRNow-International scoping study - will get reference materials from OGC website from the meeting) as well as GEOSS itselfWe (AIRNow) need to further identify and register our available data and information in the GEOSS
I don't think we are out of bounds to say we would like to see the public health folks using our data.  If they are not participating in
+
registries/Clearinghouse/User Portals/Catalogs. Thanks! jw
GEOSS now (and in the USG, health participation is weak) that does not mean we should not push for it. Further, I don't think of USG health agencies as the ones moving the ball forward on AQ epi work (or at least they don't have a monopoly). The GEOSS goal is to push data out to users, not just others 'within'GEOSS. It seems like the AIRNow 2007 Calif event and the SERVIR 2007 event are probably the best stories out there for real-time or near-real-time AQ response to firesOther examples???  That makes combining SERVIR with AIRNow rather exciting.  Actually doing GEOSS !!!! The transboundary events are certainly very interesting.  But the strong exposures are more local...  at a scale where transport really needs BlueSky RAINS.  Is that type of capability existing at SERVIR? Can it be made interoperable so that it can be?  Since we are building our perfect geoss machine of the future, it seems like we should pitch for such capabilities.
 
  
=====Re: Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 14:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)=====
+
===Re: Ispra Meeting Report -- [[User:Flindsay|Flindsay]] 12:54, 29 April 2008 (EDT)===
Good question on BSK.  I don't know the answer!  I was thinking very simplistically -- using SERVIR as a "fire spotter", then perhaps doing
+
AQ Breakout - Ipsra Pilot Workshop, Feb 2008
some sort of modeling to guess where a smoke plume was going.  I think BSK has that capability, but I'm not sure that SERVIR is using the same
+
* John White, EPA
models.  In any event, I think the concept is valid -- using satellite to detect fire, then using a compilation of tools and data to predict
+
* Francesca Casale, ESA
the plume, followed by ground truthing to measure plume impact and public health.  So, the only transboundary phenomenon I was thinking of
+
* Lucien Wald, Ecole Des Mines De Paris
was transport of the smoke. In Jim's example, the smoke was high above the ground once it left Alaska, but had measurable PM2.5 concentrations
+
* David Arctur, OGC
in the SouthEast.  From a purely health-based perspective, EPA couldn't be of any use while the smoke was aloft, but in the future it would be
+
* Robert Thomas, Compusult
great to know it was coming! Anyway, I was using Alaska as an example only because the California fires were on such a small scale and don't exactly scale up to a GEOSS example all by themselves. Also, BSK might be the perfect tool to plug in, but I'm not well versed on it.  I bet Rudy or Stefan can address that quite well.
+
* Ellsworth LeDrew, U of Waterloo, IEEE
 +
* Stu Frye, NOBLIS/NASA
 +
* Gianlucs Wraschi, JRC
 +
* Michel Millot, JRC
 +
* Jiashen Zhang, CMA
 +
* Chu Ishida, JAXA
 +
* Lawrence McGovern, INCOSE, NGC
 +
* George Percivail, OGC
 +
* Francis Lindsay, NASA
  
======'''Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Sfalke|Sfalke]] 14:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)'''======
+
== On AIP Evolution, Persistance -- 15 February 2008 (EST) -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST) ==
Incorporating Bluesky forecasting would be valuable. In one of our NASA projects as part of NASA's Sensor Web Program, we're working on the use and development of interoperable web service interfaces to foster information flow between sensors and models. The Bluesky model is one of our target models. The group at the Forest Service and Sonoma Technology is presently redesigning the Bluesky framework so that it is modular (and therefore more suitable for integration in a service oriented framework). There's still a lot of work to be done before the model components are "interoperable" or can be "plugged" in but I like the idea of including smoke forecasts and long range transport in the GEOSS scenario to see what could be done for the pilot. The input data we've been working with include surface data, satellite observations (the usual MODIS but also the "taskable" hyperspectral EO-1), and a NASA-Ames UAV (which is somehow involved in the SERVIR project - so another link between those efforts)
+
[[Image:080214 AIPilot Evolution Persistency.png|100px]] In his [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/system/files/080206+ADC-6+Percivall.ppt Ispra AIP presentation], George Percivall, OGC states that based on participants feedback, there is a [[Media:080214_AIPilot_Evolution_Persistency.ppt|modified approach to AIP]]: ''(1) Increase the influence of system users; (2) Make the process iterative, evolutionary with open participation;  (3) Seek operational systems, not demos (4) Phased/iterative approach to operational systems - structured plan within each phase''. This evolutionary approach will make it easier to achieve the desired persistent networked AQ Information systems. Thanks George! [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I'll work on putting together a write-up and posting it to the wiki.
 
  
== Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Syoung|Syoung]] 12:11, 28 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
== "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 19:47, 4 March 2008 (EST) ==
  
I'm not seeing a discussion of fire-specific data as an input. Not that I know this stuff, but I'm guessing there is a need for estimates of the types and quantities of combusted material, and for characterizations of the fire behavior, especially how high up the smoke is going, which I assume is a function both of atmospheric conditions and the behavior of the fire itself.
+
This is to inform the ESIP Air Quality Cluster and other interested parties of the upcoming workshop,"User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario”. The purpose of the workshop is to use the Air Quality Scenario to develop and validate the interaction between the User Interface and Architecture activities of GEOSS.  
  
I'm also wondering about aviation uses. I know that it's a very big deal to track volcanic ash plumes and keep airplanes away from them (especially because volcanic ash kills jet engines). I don't know how much the aviators care about major smoke events - ?? There might be room for further development of potential impacts on ground transportation, too.
+
More on this:[[2008-03-04:_GEOSS_User_Interface_Meet%2C_May_6-8%2C_Toronto|2008-03-04: GEOSS User Interface Meet, May 6-8, Toronto ]]
  
===Re: Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 20:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)===
+
===Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Ellsworth LeDrew===
Steve, Regarding users in aviation and surface transportation, here is a broader list of users/decision-makers that could benefit from the smoke Pilot. It is understood that we cannot address each in detail. However, this list would be important to identify to whom a smoke event trigger should be sent to.
+
Greetings:Thankyou for taking the initiative on this and we welcome your posting. We would be pleased to help with your continued development of the air quality theme within GEO.   Regards Ells
* '''Informing and advising the Public'''
 
** General Public Information - Newspaper, TV...
 
** Public Health - surface concentration, (American Lung Assoc.)
 
** Public Safety - Road visibility (DOT), Aviation visibility (FAA) 
 
* '''Air Quality Regulatory Decision-Support'''
 
** Exceptional Event Documentation (State, Regional, Federal)
 
** Smoke Transport - Inter-Regional, International, Inter-Continental (LRTP, HTAP)
 
*''' Atmospheric Science Decision Support'''
 
** Smoke Emission Source Characterization
 
** Transport Mechanisms, Distances, Spatial-Temporal pattern
 
** Kinetic Processes
 
  
====Re: Re: Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 13:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)====
+
====Re: Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 19:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)====
Rudy, you've nicely summed up the three communities that ultimately need support from GEOSS AQ data.
+
[[2008-03-04: GEOSS User Interface Meeting, May 6-8, Toronto|Agenda]] posted for the Toronto meeting.
  
Do we need to identify one of these to focus on in Ispra?  It seems that the work on the wiki has mainly focused on identifying data sources and resources / tools.  Is this job for after Ispra?
+
== Archived the discussion from before Ispra -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 16:38, 24 April 2008 (EDT) ==
  
== Scenario Background Added -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 20:46, 28 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
I've moved all of the discussion that occurred before the Ispra meeting to a new [[/Archive 1|Archive]] page.  It's all there.
  
Given the short time for the smoke scenario preparation we are now feeding information into the "pool" in a piece-meal fashion. The new pieces are links to previous Smoke Scenarios as developed for FASTNET and for the NASA Data System Vision. They are found under Historical Smoke Scenarios on the front page of the [[GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario|wiki]]. We also added another scenario resource: [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Generic_Smoke_Scenario#Scenario_Events Generic AIP Smoke Scenario]. We hope to merge this with the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Pilot_Scenario smoke scenario] that you have on the wiki. So, this is just a heads up on what is coming down the pipeline for us to work on.
+
== Rewrite after Toronto: more focus on users, connections -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 15:28, 13 May 2008 (EDT) ==
  
== New Scenarios!!! --[[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 20:19, 30 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
I added a section to the AIP scenario. This is a new overview.
  
We've changed things quite a bit. Here are three scenarios we would like to present next week.
+
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario#Overview
  
A. [[AIP AQ Scenario A: Smoke and Dust| Smoke and Dust events]] - with a focus on understanding the events, as opposed to real-time / forecast<br>
+
I will soon remove most of the "Summary" section, and work the remainder of the summary into the overview.
B. [[AIP AQ Scenario B: Model - Data Synthesis|Model evaluation with modern observational tools]].  <br>
 
C. [[AIP AQ Scenario C: forecasts|AQ forecasts]], particularly in areas with a lack of ambient monitors.
 
  
This is a big change, to broaden the 'issues' involved while we focus a bit on the decisions we are interested in (as opposed to specifics about the data inputs).
+
My goal is to address the concerns we heard in Toronto, that were better expressed on the phone on Friday.
  
We've created three new pages linked on the front page to these 3 scenariosAs you'll see these pages are largely shameless copies of existing pages.  As such they aren't yet even internally consistentPLEASE HELP us clean these up!  Thanks!
+
I'd like us to keep the structure with the three decision makers (LR pollutant transport policy-maker, exceptional events AQ manager, and the public) end usersThis is in fitting with the described task from GEO ("Write the scenario from the decision maker's POV, e.g. the scenario should avoid identifying details of info systems").   
  
===Re: New Scenarios!!!  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 16:45, 31 January 2008 (EST)===
+
However, I do want to do more, to push this ideally in both the directions that I was pushing (focus on data fusion) and those that Rudy was advocating (focus on upstream users and the data connections that they need).  I tried to explain where this would go in the overview section.
Dear Colleagues: The submission of additional [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Talk:GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario#New_Scenarios.21.21.21_--Davidmccabe_20:19.2C_30_January_2008_.28EST.29 scenario items by EPA] to the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Pilot_Scenario AIP Scenario] and the subsequent discussion at the ESIP telecon is the most delightful development I can think of. It provides new ideas and dynamics into the Pilot process. Based on the various conversations, the EPA group can fill in the scenario template which appropriately takes into account the information needs for scientific assessment (historical, in-depth (re)analysis, modeling, etc), as well as real-time/forecast information needs during events.  
 
  
I know that this is very pretentious thing to say, but I am certain that there WILL be a positive outcome. The vigorous constructive exchange on the telecon about the scenario(s) shows that this group has determination and means business. Also, I cant resist to invoke an [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/b/b7/Team_Development.ppt academic perspective] on group development. This group has evidently moved from the Forming and Storming phases to the Norming (consensus) phase. According to some academics, the preceding Storming phase is a necessary condition for building robust and successful groups. Now we ARE a group. (...soft background music in the background )
+
Next, I'd propose a more specific Actors section, which will try to touch on many of the boxes that Rudy and I drew on the diagrams we uploaded during Friday's telecon.
  
== GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Flindsay|Flindsay]] 31 January 2008 ==
+
See images here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/2008-05-05:_UIC/ADC_Air_Quality_Scenario_Workshop
  
Hi Ernie, just to give you a heads up on the outcome of the telecon todayGreg was on and I think we (NASA) have a consensus on at least how we can approach work on a AQ pilot for the upcoming meeting in Ispra.  We ended up having a pretty wide ranging discussion on the topic but there was some slight differences of opinion concerning the scope of the pilot and the role of science versus that of delivering some societal benefit.  EPA appears to have some of its won differences on that score, but we concluded the Air Now effort would remain an end point for some collection of data and services being delivered to it.  Also, EPA offered a mini-scenario that would focus on smoke and dust treated as a ‘exceptional event for state and local AQ managers.  I do not have anything more nailed down that this, though we collectively agreed that we should focus on what and who is on hand in the AQ community we are forming around other efforts... such as our NO2 work.  Any other thoughts on tying in the ACC would be great.  I’ll begin with the documents you have already sent.
+
Likewise, making the information needs a bit more specific to the scenario describedThis allows us to work in needs for data fusion, but not just data fusion.
  
===Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Ehilsenrath|Ehilsenrath]] 31 January 2008===
+
Perhaps this is a somewhat more specific (at least upstream) description of the scenario than GEO asked for, but given the broad questions we are asking, I think this is appropriate.   
Frank Thanks for the update. However your message was not specific as to what the approach to Ispra actually will be. I may have made a tactical error by not having Jack Fishman, his EPA and NOAA collaborators, or me on hand to participate in this telecon to put this ACC project  in the right perspectiveBut we appreciate [[AIP_AQ_Scenario_A:_Smoke_and_Dust |ESIP participation]].
 
  
====Re: Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Jszykman|Jszykman]] 1 February 2008====
+
Thoughts?? Demands to Revert???
All, I think this is more of a FYI right now, but I received the following e-mail from Ernie yesterday. I am not sure what was discussed yesterday because I was not aware of this call, but this seems related the CEOS-ACC project Jack is leading. Frank would it be possible for you to provide some more details to the group on what is being discussed within ESIP? Also, should someone from the current ACC project join into the ESIP call later this morning?
 
  
=====Re: Re: Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Flindsay|Flindsay]] 1 February 2008=====
+
== UIC/ADC Pilot  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 19:19, 13 May 2008 (EDT) ==
Hi Jim, I have added two folks to this email exchange, Stefan Falke and Rudy Husar. They head up the ESIP’s Air Quality efforts and of course have their own independent research and analysis efforts. Both Stefan and Rudy have been very active in the build up to the Ispra meeting where the GEOSS pilots will be initiatedInstead of speaking for them, I was hoping they could respond to this group with a few details of current AQ activities under the auspices of the ESIP Federation??? I’ll be happy to chime in with any other information that may be helpfulAs many of you are aware John White from EPA, Stuart Fyre GSFC, and I will be attending the Ispra meeting in support of this effort.
+
Hello UIC - AQ group, A brief update on the happenings:
 +
At the by-weekly ADC  telecon for the Architecture Implementation Pilot (AIP) today, we have briefed the ADC subgroup on the [[2008-05-05:_UIC/ADC_Air_Quality_Scenario_Workshop|Toronto UIC AQ workshop/meeting]] with [http://capita.wustl.edu/capita/capitareports/080505_GEOSS_UIC_AQ/080513_UIC_Workshop_Report_to_AIP.ppt two slides]. These are linked to the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/AIPtelecons OGC AIP telecon meeting pages]. If there is a problem with that open exposure, please let me know, can be fixed.
 +
* A question was raised as to '''what are the specifics of the AQ scenario,''' (so participants can begin the Pilot preparations).
 +
* George Percivall also re-emphasized that a feature of the scenario should be the '''applicability to many global regions.'''  
  
 +
The preoccupation of the ADC subgroup is the preparation of the Call for Participation (CFP) for the AIP. The CFP editors (George  & Co) expect a contribution to the CFP from the UIC group, to be submitted by the end of May. ([[Talk:2008-05-05:_UIC/ADC_Air_Quality_Scenario_Workshop#Update_AIP_Plenary_on_UIC.2FADC_Air_Quality_Scenario_Workshop_--_Rhusar_19:10.2C_9_May_2008_.28EDT.29|See discussion]])
  
== AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC -- [[User:TerryKeating|TerryKeating]] 2 February 2008 (EST) ==
+
Action item: Preparing UIC input to the CFP.
  
John, Rudy, and others,
+
The  CFP  is a complex document, covering a wide range of topics (vertically and horizontally), prepared by many contributors. Currently, the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/system/files/20080512+Plan+for+AIP+CFP.doc CFP_08 is just an outline], but George indicated that CFP_08 will based largely on CFP_07. For your consideration and reading pleasure :), here is a link to the[http://capita.wustl.edu/capita/capitareports/070511_OGC_GEOSS_Pilot/CFP_Architecture_Implementation_PilotR.pdf  CFP_07] (the yellow highlights are mine).
  
I managed to go back in and reinput the material that I lost last night. So I think that the scenario is ready to go to the OGC site.  Should I mail this to George?  If I don't here back by tonight, that is what I will do. http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario
+
As I see it, for this UIC/ADC Pilot, the UIC contributions to the CFP would need to include both
 +
* general, UIC "architectural" information as well as
 +
* UIC input the Air Quality Scenario (e.g. data for H-P Plug's UNSPU; value chain/value network for specific scenarios)
  
The wiki-markup text of the scenario is copied here (and as an attachment), in case that is a better way to move it.
+
While seeking further guidance from the Chairs on the next steps..  it seems that the stage for a productive, working-level UIC-ADC cooperation through the AIP has been set up by the Chairs. Its now up to the actors and stage-workers to perform??.  
  
When I get a chance later today, I will try to do more with the presentation template. My thinking about this was to help prepare a presentaiton that summarizes the scenario describes and then shows a number of examples of things that have already been done. David has pulled together some material for the examples.
+
===Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 19:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)===
 +
Hello George, John White and myself have rewritten the Air Quality Scenario.  This rewrite (which we are just finishing up now) is an attempt to respond to what we heard in Toronto and from the community. Our goals in rewriting: <br>
 +
a. more focus on the end users <br>
 +
b. also spell out the other users along the value chain, more directly connected to the scenario <br>
 +
c. point out the common needs of all the users (and why we wrote such a broad scenario!)<br>
 +
* greater connectivity, interoperability
 +
* utilization of interoperability and SOA to facilitate creation of *operational* tools for data intercomparison and fusion
 +
d. fit the scenario into the Enterprise Viewpoint template<br>
 +
The scenario can be viewed (and modified) at http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario Note that we have kept the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS. We hope this is what you need; we need to know what the next steps are, particularly for the development of section 2.6.1.1.4, the enterprise model.  The existing scenario can easily be ported into a word document or similar format (which I would be happy to do!).  However, let us know if other materials are needed.
  
===Re: AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008===
+
====Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- [[User:GPercivall|GPercivall]] 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)====
Good, I transfer the scenario to the OGC site along with the updated nano-report of the process....George is already on the move.
+
David, Thanks to you, John, and all contributors for preparing this AQ scenario. A particularly good choice is your emphasis to keep the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS value chain for AQ.  In retrospect, the CFP template for the scenarios I previously provided may be too narrow.  Your approach will serve as a prime example for scenarios in the CFP. As I integrate the wiki page into the CFP document, it may be that the scenario is a bit long and will require some editing. Perhaps, I attempt this editing and make the CFP available for your review. The CFP can include the URL for the full wiki versionAlternatively, you could edit the wiki version into about 2 pages in MS Word.  Please advise how you would like to proceed.
  
Dave you can upload any slides you have onto the wiki...and you can continuously update it there I am making the slide showing the "Community of Practice" process
+
=====Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]] 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)=====
 +
Hi all - There are still some loose ends in the wiki page (unless David or others addressed last night/today)....how much time do we have George?Next week is the EPA Science Forum....have folks had a chance to see all of the revisions David and I posted?  I may can take a stab at narrowing things down Tuesday/Wednesday.
 +
Thanks!
  
... and I hope that for the sake of transparency  to the others (the current and future members of the Group), its OK to place these conversations on the wiki..?!
+
======Re: Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- [[User:Erinmr|Erinmr]] 15:38, 16 May 2008 (EDT)======
 +
[[Talk:2008-05-05: UIC/ADC Air Quality Scenario Workshop| More discussion on UIC/ADC Air Quality Scenario Workshop Feedback]]
  
===Re: AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008===
+
== Word Version Submitted! -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 12:56, 3 June 2008 (EDT) ==
Hello AQ Cluster, Huh, what a Zone experience. My humble, objective and very tempered opinion is that the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario GEOSS AIP Air Quality scenario] that John White has started and Terry Keating manufactured from the available parts is  :) :) ....AWESOME!
 
  
* The [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario Unified Scenario] on the wiki  now occupies the place for the  Submitted Scenario
+
Hi all,
* The same has been submitted to the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349 official OGC site] for George and the others in AIP along with a [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349#comment-400 comment].
 
  
A reality issue: The Pilot that is to execute this 'dream scenario' will take time to do. Really!  My concern is not to get locked into an unrealistic  time frame of months to execute the Pilot. (That was the case for the first AIP Pilot). If we are in this for the long-haul, should we explore with George Percivall and the AIP Brass if there is a way to execute the Pilot in stages?  Certainly the AQ Data Network will take time..and time.   
+
I got some feedback and made most of the suggested changes.  The 'final' Word version of of the scenario [[Media:AQ_2008_CFP.doc]] has the same name as the version I posted last week. (For the sake of documentation, the version I posted last week is [[Media:AQ_2008_CFP_29May2008v.doc|here]].)
  
This Scenario preparation was a short, intense, participatory and productive experience. The ESIP AQ Cluster and Stefan's telecon sessions were a vital forum for interaction, so was the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario ESIP AQ wiki workspace]. For those who could not participate in the Scenario development, the AIP process is not over...in fact it has barely begun. The Pilot is yet to come. If interested, please join us on the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario AIP Community of Practice] (GEOSS lingo for  this kind of group) ESIP website.
+
In theory, we are 'done.'  However, we refer to the 'full version' of the scenario in the word document with a link to it, so we can certainly improve that.  I'd propose we 'hide' or at least de-emphasize the wiki two-page version. I'd like to cast a enthusiastic vote for focusing and cleaning up the wiki workspace so that it is clear what we are working on, paring (or segregating to an archive) older material.
  
May a successful AIP Pilot be our reward!
+
==  cartoon slide for AQ scenario  -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]], 26 June 2008 (EDT) ==
  
Rudy
+
Hi folks, I sent the attached slide to Geo. Percival when I was discussing the enterprise architecture diagrams for the AQ scenario in the draft CFP. This morning George asked me about including the diagram from the slide in the CFP.  (the architecture diagrams would still be there). Thoughts?
  
 +
If I hear no objections, I will say yes, but I think I will tweak the test on the bottom a bit.  Last I knew the CFP has to get finished today, so I need to hear from folks quickly. <br>
 +
[[Image:AQScenarioValueChain.png|200px]]
  
== Scenario PPT -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 1 February 2008 (EST) ==
+
===Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 18:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)===
 +
David, Which architecture diagrams that are relevant to air quality are you referring to? I don't see any in the CFP. For sake of time and energy conservation, your diagram should serve the purpose. The previously established differences in perspectives as to what GEOSS is and what it does, still remain. However, there is no need to resolve those now if we have concrete architectural diagrams (e.g. attachment) that can guide the implementation of the multiple air quality scenarios.<br>
 +
[[Image:AQScenarioArch.png|200px]]
  
Another thing. George Percivall just sent out this [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=26451 ppt template] to be used for the Pilot presentations and discussion. Certainly, John White's presentation of the scenario stuff should be on this template. We can add one slide on the scenario preparation process... somewhat along this line.
+
====Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario  -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] , 26 June 2008 (EDT)====
   
+
Rudy, Just had a very useful phone call with Stefan. We are working on things! He suggested several concrete approaches to make my workflow diagram less artificial; meanwhile, he will work on your larger diagram (slide 2 as you sent it to me) to make that illustrative of the relationship of the workflow we wrote about to GEOSS (or at least the orthodox view of GEOSS, if I may be so bold).  
''During the short period, Jan 21-31, 2008, there was vigorous and productive discussion on various refinements to the initial EPA scenario. Telecon meetings and the wiki workspace were used to conduct the interaction of the diverse multi-agency-state-academic-industry group. These fed significant new ideas into the Pilot Scenario preparation process. Based on the various inputs, the EPA group was able to prepare a consensus scenario which takes into account both the information needs for scientific and policy assessment (historical, in-depth (re)analysis, modeling, etc), as well as for real-time analysis and forecasting during air pollution events. This scenario should provide a solid basis for the AQ scenario discussion at the Feb 4-5 Ispra AIP workshop. Also, I think that it would be meaningful to have Frank Lindsay present a few slides (using this template) during the Air Quality Session.
 
''
 
  
===Re: Scenario PPT -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008 (EST)===
+
To expand on that sarcastic asideIt is slowly sinking through my skull that part of the reason that many folks are rather unsure what to do with the scenario is that they do not see the relationship of what we've written to GEOSS.  EPA (and CAPITA!) considers the tools and functionality that we are asking for to be a valid & natual part of The GEOSS.  However, this is not self-evident to all participants who focus on the 'GEOSS Core.'
Terry,
 
* Attached is a Scenario Process slide for the presentation.
 
* It would be good for you to send a note to George that the scenario is submitted on the OGC site.
 
  
====Re: Re: Scenario PPT -- [[User:TerryKeating|TerryKeating]] 2 February 2008 (EST)====
+
=====Re: Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- [[User:Sfalke|Sfalke]] 18:52, 26 June 2008 (EDT)=====
John, Here is a start at a presentation.  It begins with a summary of the scenario description and then moves to examples.
+
David, I know time's tight, so here's a quick simplification that focuses on mapping to the GEOSS/community bullets in the scenario. Rudy, is it oversimplified? <br>
 +
[[Image:AQScenarioArch_S.png|200px]]
  
=====Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 3 February 2008 (EST) =====
+
======Re: Re: Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 19:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)======
Hi, Nice work,again, on the AIP AQ Scenario PPT. The scenario PPT will probably go public on the OGC site soon after the meeting. I touched up the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/7/7b/08_02_02_AIP_AQ_scenario.ppt uploaded PPT] with a few  initial links... and the front page. More links could be entered over the next few days. Will John have the time to go through the examples? How about time for Frank Lindsay's piece? Maybe other presenters?
+
George, Sorry so last minute, here is a new version of the slide. can you put it right at the end of section 2.6.2.2(right before the
 +
header for 2.6.2.3) We'd also suggest Stefan's text right at the beginning of the enterprise
 +
viewpoint section:
  
======Re: Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 3 February 2008 (EST)======
+
"An objective of the AI Pilot is to develop enterprise models capturing the components and interactions among the diverse set of air quality users/actors. The following enterprise model diagrams focus on a subset of the overall air quality scenario and represent a starting point that is expected to evolve based on the implementation of components and interoperability agreements among Pilot participants."
Frank, John, I've made a couple changes to the powerpoint presentation. Here is a new link: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/e/eb/08_02_03_AIP_AQ_scenario.ppt
 
  
One word: the idea behind the last slide, if it isn't clear, is simply a plea that we not have to build a new pipe (ie months of code) everytime somebody has a new scientific or policy idea.  Or the same idea from a different location (mesoamerica vs. california).  The air quality community has built a lot of interconnected datasets and systems over the years, and we can impress these folks with that and say, 'moving forward, let's do it in a better way.' Have a great time there, we are looking forward to hearing about it!
+
[[Image:AQValueChain_III.png|200px]]
 
 
======Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]] 4 February 2008 (EST)======
 
Hi all. I have reviewed the web pages and downloaded the ppt. Frank has good intuition - the networks are poor. I am tethering my blackberry to my laptop and it is very slow and unstable. One desktop in lobby - 486 I think with no usb port. Sent wiki pages via pdf to my hotmail account - then managed to download to desktop (all in italian) and print. :-). Took a long time - can't believe I would have faster internet with my home dial-up than here...but hey. Don't have time to send 2.5 meg ppt - hopefully will print at JRC today.
 
Thanks again for all of the prep work - I need to learn all of the acronyms/applications/projects..... :-) Will be fun today I am sure - weather lousy though.
 
 
 
== Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:Erinmr|Erinmr]] 01:23, 15 February 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
Hello Dr LeDrew, I note from George Pecivall's schedule that you will be discussing the UIC/ADC Collaboration at the Ispra AIP workshop. Our air quality community appreciates that ADC and your UIC Committee (Gary Foley,  yourself, Brendan Kelly, and others) is pursuing a strengthened  UIC/ADC connection. The incorporation of an Air Quality
 
scenario into the Pilot is an outstanding opportunity to contribute to that effort as part of a domain-specific Pilot.
 
 
 
For your information, the self-organizing group that has prepared the AIP Pilot - Air Quality Scenario appears to be an emerging "Community of Practice" interested in Air Quality applications using the GEOSS Architecture and User Interface Committee principles. A slide from [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/3/35/08_02_02_AIP_AQ_scenario_CommPractice.ppt John White's presentation] at Ispra has the relevant links. The Air Quality group is keenly interested in perusing and strengthening UIC/ADS link in this scenario through the continued development of the principles and methods for Communities of Practice - and testing those in this Air Quality Pilot.
 
Input and guidance from Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, George Percivall and others will be appreciated. Cordially, Rudy Husar
 

Latest revision as of 11:23, August 31, 2012

/Archive 1

Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- Rhusar 3 February 2008 (EST)

Hello Dr LeDrew, I note from George Pecivall's schedule that you will be discussing the UIC/ADC Collaboration at the Ispra AIP workshop. Our air quality community appreciates that ADC and your UIC Committee (Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, and others) is pursuing a strengthened UIC/ADC connection. The incorporation of an Air Quality scenario into the Pilot is an outstanding opportunity to contribute to that effort as part of a domain-specific Pilot.

For your information, the self-organizing group that has prepared the AIP Pilot - Air Quality Scenario appears to be an emerging "Community of Practice" interested in Air Quality applications using the GEOSS Architecture and User Interface Committee principles. A slide from John White's presentation at Ispra has the relevant links. The Air Quality group is keenly interested in perusing and strengthening UIC/ADS link in this scenario through the continued development of the principles and methods for Communities of Practice - and testing those in this Air Quality Pilot. Input and guidance from Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, George Percivall and others will be appreciated. Cordially, Rudy Husar

Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- Rhusar 19:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello George, Doug, Josh, This is to thank you for the opportunity make a short presentation on Air Quality Data Systems and the GEOSS Architecture at the March OGC TC meeting in Stl. Louis. Your feedback and encouragement to seek closer linkage with the OGC and GEOSS activities is appreciated. As part of the preparation for the GEOSS AIP Air Quality Scenario, we hope to engage our emerging Community of Practice (CoP) to refine the ideas on how to interface the existing AQ data systems with the GOSS Core Architecture as well as with the work of the ADC and UIC Committees. Any additional feedback you may have will be well received.

Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- ELeDrew 20:00, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Greetings: Do you have time for a phone call before tomorrow pm? Jerry Johnston, Hans-Peter Plag and I have a telecon then to finalize the May 5 workshop agenda in Toronto. Jerry just found out, and it didn't click for me, the work you have been doing on the ADC call for participation for the Air Quality Scenario, and it might be the best case study for our work. Basically we want participants to form small groups of actors to fill out the registry tables of Hans--Peter (separate email sent to you after this) from the users perspective. I see you are registered, so perhaps you can help mould this to be of benefit for you. I have just talked to George Percivall. I have called John White but he is not at his phone at the moment, but I copy him. Ells

Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- Rhusar 20:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Ells, In response to your note, I begun filling in the tables rows for Users, Applications and User-App Links. http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Image:UIC_Air_Quality_Tables.doc The AQ cast in the distribution list is encouraged to edit these tables. I will also continue to do so... we can discuss this on the GEOSS UIC Toronto wiki page shortly. For others, the most concise version of the AQ AIP Scenario is in this PPT http://www.ogcnetwork.net/system/files/08_02_03_AIP_AQ_scenario_jw.ppt. The full 'organisational memory' of our workgroup is on the wiki.

Looking at the tables, a key consideration is that the AQ Pilot is geared toward solidifying the networking infrastructure which will be able to support the needs of multiple AQ Applications.as well as multiple users. Also, we have been considering the full array of stakeholders in the value chain from data providers to processors, mediators ... to the 'end users' of the information systems.

Ispra Meeting Report -- John E. White (Jwhite airnow) 13 February 2008 (EST)

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know the ADC meeting went well. There was about a dozen attendees at the Air Quality and Health Session (Frank Lindsay has the actual list) and we walked through the scenario that was developed on the ESIP wiki. We received some feedback and the good thing was no gaps were identified. There was no objection to any of the areas outlined in the scenario. The action items resulting from these discussions are to: 1) revisit and finalize the Air Quality and Health Scenario if we feel it is needed (we rushed up to the last minute), 2) Identify other organizations or potential GEOSS users to get additional input, feedback, and buy-in (i.e., obviously others were not at the meeting, not included in the GEOSS loop - so can we reach out to them to see if they can provide input/feedback - such as EEA), and 3) Work with the GEO UIC to finalize scenario (get their input - see email thread below) for the upcoming CFP in March 2008.

An additional action item is to work with Dr. Ellsworth LeDrew (below), the other co-chair of the GEO UIC, in developing a one day workshop/demonstration at the upcoming GEO UIC meeting in Toronto, Canada specifically for the Air Quality and Health Scenario. The GEO UIC wants to highlight the Air Quality and Health Scenario to its members to show the progress GEOSS is making.

As an aside - the other benefits gained during the meeting is a better understanding of international standards (for the AIRNow-International scoping study - will get reference materials from OGC website from the meeting) as well as GEOSS itself. We (AIRNow) need to further identify and register our available data and information in the GEOSS registries/Clearinghouse/User Portals/Catalogs. Thanks! jw

Re: Ispra Meeting Report -- Dr. Francis Lindsay (Flindsay) 12:54, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

AQ Breakout - Ipsra Pilot Workshop, Feb 2008

  • John White, EPA
  • Francesca Casale, ESA
  • Lucien Wald, Ecole Des Mines De Paris
  • David Arctur, OGC
  • Robert Thomas, Compusult
  • Ellsworth LeDrew, U of Waterloo, IEEE
  • Stu Frye, NOBLIS/NASA
  • Gianlucs Wraschi, JRC
  • Michel Millot, JRC
  • Jiashen Zhang, CMA
  • Chu Ishida, JAXA
  • Lawrence McGovern, INCOSE, NGC
  • George Percivail, OGC
  • Francis Lindsay, NASA

On AIP Evolution, Persistance -- 15 February 2008 (EST) -- Rhusar 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

080214 AIPilot Evolution Persistency.png In his Ispra AIP presentation, George Percivall, OGC states that based on participants feedback, there is a modified approach to AIP: (1) Increase the influence of system users; (2) Make the process iterative, evolutionary with open participation; (3) Seek operational systems, not demos (4) Phased/iterative approach to operational systems - structured plan within each phase. This evolutionary approach will make it easier to achieve the desired persistent networked AQ Information systems. Thanks George! Rhusar 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Rhusar 19:47, 4 March 2008 (EST)

This is to inform the ESIP Air Quality Cluster and other interested parties of the upcoming workshop,"User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario”. The purpose of the workshop is to use the Air Quality Scenario to develop and validate the interaction between the User Interface and Architecture activities of GEOSS.

More on this:2008-03-04: GEOSS User Interface Meet, May 6-8, Toronto

Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Ellsworth LeDrew

Greetings:Thankyou for taking the initiative on this and we welcome your posting. We would be pleased to help with your continued development of the air quality theme within GEO. Regards Ells

Re: Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Rhusar 19:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Agenda posted for the Toronto meeting.

Archived the discussion from before Ispra -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I've moved all of the discussion that occurred before the Ispra meeting to a new Archive page. It's all there.

Rewrite after Toronto: more focus on users, connections -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I added a section to the AIP scenario. This is a new overview.

http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario#Overview

I will soon remove most of the "Summary" section, and work the remainder of the summary into the overview.

My goal is to address the concerns we heard in Toronto, that were better expressed on the phone on Friday.

I'd like us to keep the structure with the three decision makers (LR pollutant transport policy-maker, exceptional events AQ manager, and the public) end users. This is in fitting with the described task from GEO ("Write the scenario from the decision maker's POV, e.g. the scenario should avoid identifying details of info systems").

However, I do want to do more, to push this ideally in both the directions that I was pushing (focus on data fusion) and those that Rudy was advocating (focus on upstream users and the data connections that they need). I tried to explain where this would go in the overview section.

Next, I'd propose a more specific Actors section, which will try to touch on many of the boxes that Rudy and I drew on the diagrams we uploaded during Friday's telecon.

See images here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/2008-05-05:_UIC/ADC_Air_Quality_Scenario_Workshop

Likewise, making the information needs a bit more specific to the scenario described. This allows us to work in needs for data fusion, but not just data fusion.

Perhaps this is a somewhat more specific (at least upstream) description of the scenario than GEO asked for, but given the broad questions we are asking, I think this is appropriate.

Thoughts?? Demands to Revert???

UIC/ADC Pilot -- Rhusar 19:19, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Hello UIC - AQ group, A brief update on the happenings: At the by-weekly ADC telecon for the Architecture Implementation Pilot (AIP) today, we have briefed the ADC subgroup on the Toronto UIC AQ workshop/meeting with two slides. These are linked to the OGC AIP telecon meeting pages. If there is a problem with that open exposure, please let me know, can be fixed.

  • A question was raised as to what are the specifics of the AQ scenario, (so participants can begin the Pilot preparations).
  • George Percivall also re-emphasized that a feature of the scenario should be the applicability to many global regions.

The preoccupation of the ADC subgroup is the preparation of the Call for Participation (CFP) for the AIP. The CFP editors (George & Co) expect a contribution to the CFP from the UIC group, to be submitted by the end of May. (See discussion)

Action item: Preparing UIC input to the CFP.

The CFP is a complex document, covering a wide range of topics (vertically and horizontally), prepared by many contributors. Currently, the CFP_08 is just an outline, but George indicated that CFP_08 will based largely on CFP_07. For your consideration and reading pleasure :), here is a link to theCFP_07 (the yellow highlights are mine).

As I see it, for this UIC/ADC Pilot, the UIC contributions to the CFP would need to include both

  • general, UIC "architectural" information as well as
  • UIC input the Air Quality Scenario (e.g. data for H-P Plug's UNSPU; value chain/value network for specific scenarios)

While seeking further guidance from the Chairs on the next steps.. it seems that the stage for a productive, working-level UIC-ADC cooperation through the AIP has been set up by the Chairs. Its now up to the actors and stage-workers to perform??.

Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Hello George, John White and myself have rewritten the Air Quality Scenario. This rewrite (which we are just finishing up now) is an attempt to respond to what we heard in Toronto and from the community. Our goals in rewriting:
a. more focus on the end users
b. also spell out the other users along the value chain, more directly connected to the scenario
c. point out the common needs of all the users (and why we wrote such a broad scenario!)

  • greater connectivity, interoperability
  • utilization of interoperability and SOA to facilitate creation of *operational* tools for data intercomparison and fusion

d. fit the scenario into the Enterprise Viewpoint template
The scenario can be viewed (and modified) at http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario Note that we have kept the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS. We hope this is what you need; we need to know what the next steps are, particularly for the development of section 2.6.1.1.4, the enterprise model. The existing scenario can easily be ported into a word document or similar format (which I would be happy to do!). However, let us know if other materials are needed.

Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- GPercivall 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

David, Thanks to you, John, and all contributors for preparing this AQ scenario. A particularly good choice is your emphasis to keep the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS value chain for AQ. In retrospect, the CFP template for the scenarios I previously provided may be too narrow. Your approach will serve as a prime example for scenarios in the CFP. As I integrate the wiki page into the CFP document, it may be that the scenario is a bit long and will require some editing. Perhaps, I attempt this editing and make the CFP available for your review. The CFP can include the URL for the full wiki version. Alternatively, you could edit the wiki version into about 2 pages in MS Word. Please advise how you would like to proceed.

Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- John E. White (Jwhite airnow) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi all - There are still some loose ends in the wiki page (unless David or others addressed last night/today)....how much time do we have George?Next week is the EPA Science Forum....have folks had a chance to see all of the revisions David and I posted? I may can take a stab at narrowing things down Tuesday/Wednesday. Thanks!

Re: Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- Erinmr 15:38, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

More discussion on UIC/ADC Air Quality Scenario Workshop Feedback

Word Version Submitted! -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 12:56, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi all,

I got some feedback and made most of the suggested changes. The 'final' Word version of of the scenario Media:AQ_2008_CFP.doc has the same name as the version I posted last week. (For the sake of documentation, the version I posted last week is here.)

In theory, we are 'done.' However, we refer to the 'full version' of the scenario in the word document with a link to it, so we can certainly improve that. I'd propose we 'hide' or at least de-emphasize the wiki two-page version. I'd like to cast a enthusiastic vote for focusing and cleaning up the wiki workspace so that it is clear what we are working on, paring (or segregating to an archive) older material.

cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe), 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi folks, I sent the attached slide to Geo. Percival when I was discussing the enterprise architecture diagrams for the AQ scenario in the draft CFP. This morning George asked me about including the diagram from the slide in the CFP. (the architecture diagrams would still be there). Thoughts?

If I hear no objections, I will say yes, but I think I will tweak the test on the bottom a bit. Last I knew the CFP has to get finished today, so I need to hear from folks quickly.
200px

Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- Rhusar 18:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

David, Which architecture diagrams that are relevant to air quality are you referring to? I don't see any in the CFP. For sake of time and energy conservation, your diagram should serve the purpose. The previously established differences in perspectives as to what GEOSS is and what it does, still remain. However, there is no need to resolve those now if we have concrete architectural diagrams (e.g. attachment) that can guide the implementation of the multiple air quality scenarios.
200px

Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) , 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Rudy, Just had a very useful phone call with Stefan. We are working on things! He suggested several concrete approaches to make my workflow diagram less artificial; meanwhile, he will work on your larger diagram (slide 2 as you sent it to me) to make that illustrative of the relationship of the workflow we wrote about to GEOSS (or at least the orthodox view of GEOSS, if I may be so bold).

To expand on that sarcastic aside: It is slowly sinking through my skull that part of the reason that many folks are rather unsure what to do with the scenario is that they do not see the relationship of what we've written to GEOSS. EPA (and CAPITA!) considers the tools and functionality that we are asking for to be a valid & natual part of The GEOSS. However, this is not self-evident to all participants who focus on the 'GEOSS Core.'

Re: Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- Stefan Falke (Sfalke) 18:52, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

David, I know time's tight, so here's a quick simplification that focuses on mapping to the GEOSS/community bullets in the scenario. Rudy, is it oversimplified?
200px

Re: Re: Re: Re: cartoon slide for AQ scenario -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

George, Sorry so last minute, here is a new version of the slide. can you put it right at the end of section 2.6.2.2. (right before the header for 2.6.2.3) We'd also suggest Stefan's text right at the beginning of the enterprise viewpoint section:

"An objective of the AI Pilot is to develop enterprise models capturing the components and interactions among the diverse set of air quality users/actors. The following enterprise model diagrams focus on a subset of the overall air quality scenario and represent a starting point that is expected to evolve based on the implementation of components and interoperability agreements among Pilot participants."

200px