Difference between revisions of "Sensor Web Enablement"
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
SensorWeb | SensorWeb | ||
Enablement | Enablement | ||
+ | |||
Survey | Survey | ||
Complexity | Complexity | ||
Line 39: | Line 40: | ||
Overall Satisfaction | Overall Satisfaction | ||
Total Cost | Total Cost | ||
+ | |||
SWE Lessons Learned | SWE Lessons Learned | ||
Don S. [IKHANA] | Don S. [IKHANA] | ||
Line 58: | Line 60: | ||
SEPS (Liping) | SEPS (Liping) | ||
JPL ASPEN/CASPER | JPL ASPEN/CASPER | ||
+ | |||
Pat C. [EO-1] | Pat C. [EO-1] | ||
WFS | WFS | ||
Line 74: | Line 77: | ||
neo-geographers | neo-geographers | ||
Value-added Providers | Value-added Providers | ||
+ | |||
Liping D. [GeoBrain] | Liping D. [GeoBrain] | ||
SWE getting Complex (SesnroML) | SWE getting Complex (SesnroML) | ||
Line 83: | Line 87: | ||
SWE still work in progress but very promising | SWE still work in progress but very promising | ||
no WSDL for GEO applications | no WSDL for GEO applications | ||
+ | |||
Helen C. | Helen C. | ||
High Complexity | High Complexity | ||
Line 91: | Line 96: | ||
SOS better suited than WFS for data set | SOS better suited than WFS for data set | ||
Generating cookbook and sample code | Generating cookbook and sample code | ||
+ | |||
Johannes E. | Johannes E. | ||
SOAP/WSDL | SOAP/WSDL | ||
Line 102: | Line 108: | ||
SOS | SOS | ||
Video Streaming | Video Streaming | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
NASA & OGC | NASA & OGC | ||
+ | |||
Rationale | Rationale | ||
Interoperability Standard Development is Important | Interoperability Standard Development is Important | ||
Demos | Demos | ||
Pilots | Pilots | ||
− | + | Wide Cooperation | |
Cross Agencies | Cross Agencies | ||
International | International | ||
Universities | Universities | ||
Commercial | Commercial | ||
+ | |||
Potential Impact to upcoming missions | Potential Impact to upcoming missions | ||
Reduce Cost / Time | Reduce Cost / Time | ||
International sensorweb for seamless asset / data sharing | International sensorweb for seamless asset / data sharing | ||
+ | |||
NASA / DOD | NASA / DOD | ||
Interoperability Demonstrations | Interoperability Demonstrations | ||
Line 122: | Line 133: | ||
Cross-domain Sensorweb | Cross-domain Sensorweb | ||
System of Systems | System of Systems | ||
+ | |||
NASA / CEOS / GEOSS | NASA / CEOS / GEOSS | ||
AIP 2 | AIP 2 | ||
+ | |||
NASA Requirements driving OGC Specifications | NASA Requirements driving OGC Specifications | ||
Commercial Products Support | Commercial Products Support | ||
Will become ISO/FGDC specifications | Will become ISO/FGDC specifications | ||
NASA will need to comply to those specs | NASA will need to comply to those specs | ||
+ | |||
What's Next | What's Next | ||
Goal: Getting to a Marginal Cost of adding 1 SWE node ~ 1day | Goal: Getting to a Marginal Cost of adding 1 SWE node ~ 1day |
Revision as of 16:27, August 7, 2008
The OGC Sensor Web Enablement interoperability interfaces play a key role in many of the sensor web prototypes under development in NASA’s Advanced Information Systems technology (AIST) program, in the GEOSS pilots and other efforts.
This session will focus on the leading-edge experience of early adopters of the sensor tasking services such as the Sensor Planning Service and others. What are your experiences with early implementations?
Session Leaders:
Karen Moe <Karen.Moe@nasa.gov>
Don Sullivan <donald.v.sullivan@nasa.gov>
Participants
Pat Cappelaere
Steve Olding
Brian Wilson
Helen Conover
Clyde Brown
Liping Di
Silvia Nittel
[Johannes Echterhoff via email]
The following listing tracks the discussion topic comments. Participants shared SWE lessons learned regarding complexity, performance, interoperability, overall satisfaction and notional total cost. We also discussed the NASA's rationale for and potential future interactions with SWE and OGC.
SensorWeb
Enablement
Survey Complexity Performance Interoperability Overall Satisfaction Total Cost
SWE Lessons Learned Don S. [IKHANA] SPS Issues Where is the plan? What was tasked? Who tasked it? User Authentication Access Control Asynchrony & Notifications Specifications Interdependance SAS WNS What about CAP? SPS vs Workflows Meta-SPS Draper SEPS (Liping) JPL ASPEN/CASPER
Pat C. [EO-1] WFS SOAP API Old REST API SOS SAS/WNS -> OPS-B WfCS SPS Different Communities Big IT shops ESA NGA Big Tightly Coupled Enterprises Mass Market neo-geographers Value-added Providers
Liping D. [GeoBrain] SWE getting Complex (SesnroML) Specification Overlap SAS/WNS interoperability issues Metadata / semantic issues Catalog issues SWE still work in progress but very promising no WSDL for GEO applications
Helen C. High Complexity Tools not there Fluid Specs OGC Oceans Interoperability Experiment Buoys Data SOS better suited than WFS for data set Generating cookbook and sample code
Johannes E. SOAP/WSDL WS-Addresing WS-Notificatiobn WS-Security IFGI SPS Camera control UAVs SOS Video Streaming
NASA & OGC
Rationale Interoperability Standard Development is Important Demos Pilots Wide Cooperation Cross Agencies International Universities Commercial
Potential Impact to upcoming missions Reduce Cost / Time International sensorweb for seamless asset / data sharing
NASA / DOD Interoperability Demonstrations Empire Challenge 08 09 Cross-domain Sensorweb System of Systems
NASA / CEOS / GEOSS AIP 2
NASA Requirements driving OGC Specifications Commercial Products Support Will become ISO/FGDC specifications NASA will need to comply to those specs
What's Next Goal: Getting to a Marginal Cost of adding 1 SWE node ~ 1day Simplication & Harmonization Requirements Common Architecture Mandate RESTFul Bindings For Mass Market Optional required binding Federated RESTful Security Profile Exchange for access control OpenID/OAuth WS-* WS-Addressing WS-Security / SAML WS-Notifications GeoRSS/KML/OpenSearch Sensor Discovery Catalog CS/W alternative to catalog Searchable Feeds KML / Micro-formats Semantic / Metadata