Difference between revisions of "Sensor Web Enablement"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
  
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.
+
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. A diagram exists at the TIWG sensor web collaboration web site.
  
  
 
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
+
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

Latest revision as of 16:28, 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. A diagram exists at the TIWG sensor web collaboration web site.


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