Difference between revisions of "Air Quality Breakout, ESIP 2011 Winter Meeting"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
(Reverted edits by 65.52.109.149 (talk) to last revision by Erinmr)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 11:24, September 13, 2012

back to full ESIP Winter Meeting agenda | Air Quality Main Page

The Air Quality Workgroup will be meeting on Wednesday January 5 during the ESIP Winter Meeting.

Remote Participation

GoTo Meeting

URL for screen share:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/286518929
Audio:
Dial +1 (805) 309-0016
Access Code: 286-518-929

Meeting ID: 286-518-929


January 5, Wednesday

1:45-3:15 Eastern

Welcome, Introduction and Overview (5-minutes)

  • ESIP Winter Meeting theme: Evaluating and Maximizing the Impact of Earth Science Information

New Projects

  • if you have a newly funded air quality project and would like to present an overview, please add it to this list

Existing Project Networking Updates (5-min each)

Indepth Discussion Topics

  • Recommendations for Air Quality Cyberinfrastructure
    • Summary of recommendations generated by CyAir
    • Review and feedback

(scheduled break from 3:15-3:45 Eastern)

3:45-5:15 Eastern

Indepth Discussion Topics continued

  • GEO Mid-Term Evaluation
    • Summary of evaluation
    • Review and feedback
  • GEOSS AQ Community of Practice
  • New ESIP Air Quality Workgroup Chair/co-Chairs

Notes from Session

Meeting Minutes

  • Introductions
  • Stefan Falke
    • CEOS Atmospheric Composition Portal
      • Still in beta
      • Different tools for the display of data and metadata
      • Key activity has become interpreting and implementing standards
      • Need more documentation of lessons learned from the first implementation of the standards
    • CIERA
      • Community building from an emissions standpoint
      • Similar goals to ESIP
      • Data scope is divided into species, sources, spatial, and temporal
      • Set-up a Drupal site that provides data access tools, analysis tools, and communication about emissions.
      • Hope to work on emissions ontology
  • Rudy Husar
    • HTAP Data Network
      • Standardized air quality data shared over a service-oriented, loosely coupled network
      • At least three layers of digital interoperability:
        • The data model itself (netCDF)
        • Semantic constraints on data types (CF Convention)
          • The transmitted file (WCS Standard)
      • Discussed WCS and WFS services
      • Additional services create ISO or KML files for metadata or Google Earth
    • GEO AQ CoP
      • There are pushing and pulling driving forces for data to flow from provider to user
      • Provides a personal level of interoperability
      • As part of the GEO AIP, the community catalog of data has been provided through the GEOSS clearinghouse by data facets
      • A CoP Drupal website has been created
      • GEO can help drive integrating initiatives to get other providers on board
  • Stefan (con't)
    • AIP-3 Update
      • Focused on OGC sensor observation services and web processing services
  • Terry Keating
    • CyAir Briefing
      • Not centrally controlled, but with a central plan that multiple groups can take part in implementing
      • Looking for feedback from the air quality community and from the EPA management
      • Also connects users and providers
      • Found that data access is not easy
      • Recommendations
        • Develop a 'cookbook' on how to become more interoperable
        • Hire or designate and air quality community organizer/EPA liaison
        • Generate outreach and education information
        • Create a cyberinfrastructure of core air quality data systems
        • Create CyAir resource website
        • Provide cyberinfrastrucure-building tools and resources for data providers and data users
        • Develop a relatively simple governance structure and leverage other communities
  • Yana Gevorgyan
    • GEO Evaluation
      • Monitoring and Evaluation Framework - provides guidelines for the decision/evaluation process
      • Established an evaluation team to conduct evaluations which would begin with broad evaluations until the third evaluation, where a regular cycle would be adhered to
      • Found that stakeholders are happy with GEO, glad it's there
      • But, they haven't shown that they've done anything useful to the outside world (mainly users)
        • It doesn't meet their needs for data, information, and tools
        • Found that people think GEO co-opts projects that aren't entirely theirs