Difference between revisions of "Discovery Change Proposals"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* '''Review period deadline''': | * '''Review period deadline''': | ||
* '''Facilitator''': The primary editor to help the DCP move along the process. | * '''Facilitator''': The primary editor to help the DCP move along the process. | ||
| − | * '''Current governance step''': choose from: submitted, proposal review, vote | + | * '''Current governance step''': choose from: submitted, proposal review, revision, vote, final review, ratified, rejected. |
* '''Background''': | * '''Background''': | ||
* '''Problem addressed''': | * '''Problem addressed''': | ||
* '''Proposed solution''': | * '''Proposed solution''': | ||
* '''Rationale for the solution''': | * '''Rationale for the solution''': | ||
Revision as of 14:52, February 8, 2011
<< Back to the Discovery Cluster Governance page
DCP-1
- Title: ESIP Discovery Cast Atom Response Format v1.1
- Submitted: 2011-02-08T13:00 PST
- Review period deadline: 2011-02-28T00:00 PST
- Current governance step: submitted
- Background: At the NASA Earth Science Data System Working Group meeting in New Orleans on October 21, 2010, a proposal was made to expand the scope of Federated Open Search to cover Discovery more generally, thus bringing into the fold datacasting and servicecasting. Therefore a common Atom response format is needed that extends the Atom Syndication Format (RFC 4287) with extensions specific for Earth science data usage.
- Problem addressed: Currently OpenSearch, datacasting and servicecasting all return very similar granule-level information. But there is no consistent format used. This proposal will provide a specification for a set of Earth science-specific extensions to the Atom response format.
- Proposed solution: See Discovery_Cast_Atom_Response_Format. Note that this link will be changed to include a version.
- Rationale for the solution: Reuse as much of existing standards as possible. Fold in Geo and Time extensions. Define a set of commonly used rel link types for OpenSearch, datacasting and servicecasting.
Template for new DCPs
All changes to the Discovery specifications must go through the governance process starting with a Discovery Change Proposal (DCP). Each DCP must include the following context for reference:
- A unique identifier. For example, DCP-i, where i is a unique id. It is common to see an incrementing number used in these types of community based processes.
- Title: Title of proposal.
- Submitted: Timestamp of when proposal was submitted.
- Review period deadline:
- Facilitator: The primary editor to help the DCP move along the process.
- Current governance step: choose from: submitted, proposal review, revision, vote, final review, ratified, rejected.
- Background:
- Problem addressed:
- Proposed solution:
- Rationale for the solution:
