Difference between revisions of "Sensor Web Enablement"
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Silvia Nittel | 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 |
Revision as of 16:22, 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