ESC Implementation Strategies

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)

Potential Earth Science Collaboratory Implementation Strategies and Tactics

Note: these strategies are not mutually exclusive.

Direct Funding

Recommend ESC as a program to agencies

Propose to NSF programs, esp. Earth Cube

Work with (in? around?)

Indirect or Minimalist Funding

More User Stories



Form a joint ESC effort without dedicated funding, and target ESC as the eventual home of components developed to other proposal calls. Hopefully, eventual deployment to ESC would give such proposals an advantage.

  • Pros: Worked for CEOP
  • Cons: May need to be more substantive

Reputation Scoring

Define levels of contributions to construction of ESC and some recognition structure for those different levels. These would be citable in CV's and proposals.


Make ESC a goal of the NASA Earth Science Working Groups.

  • Pros: Technology Infusion, Reuse and Standards and Processes Group currently all work on core needs of the ESC, but are not aiming toward an ESC realization.
  • Cons: Not clear that NASA wants to use ESDSWG for this; also leaves out key partners in other agencies, academia, commercial world...

Steering to a Common Target [Reference?] Architecture

Define an architecture; ask participants working on projects to "steer" their development so the products, tools or services fit into the ESC when complete.

Any potential synergy with SPG Reference Architecture effort?


Everybody go to {some collaborative site} and try collaborating on workflows, tools, data, etc. Candidates would include:

  • NASA Earth Exchange

ESIP Hackathon

Ultra-low-cost Recruiting

  • Google Summer of Code
  • Challenges

Interoperate with / Envelop / Leverage Other Systems with Commonality with ESC

  • DataOne
  • Earth System Grid
  • NSF EarthCube
  • EPA CyAir

Note that interoperability in this context goes beyond catalog or data interoperability to include tool, workflow and social-network interoperability.