Difference between revisions of "Talk:GEOSS AIP AQ Scenario"

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Line 1: Line 1:
== Change in AQ Scenario Development Leadership -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 00:24, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
+
[[/Archive 1]]
 
 
Rudy: Lots of things changed in the last day.  The new AIP Contact is John White, AIRNow team, So, please work with John between now and the workshop.  I will also be involved and will lend a hand as much as possible.
 
 
 
===Re: Change in AQ Scenario Development Leadership -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 00:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)===
 
Hello Phil, Thanks for the update. Please note that George Percivall will need to know that John White will be attending the Ispra JRC Meeting. Since there is an AIP telecon on Jan. 22, would it be possible to talk about the AIP on Monday?  In the mean time, at George's request we will be adding background material to the OGC AIP website pertaining the Air Quality scenario.
 
 
 
== ESIP Participation in Scenario Development -- [[User:TKeating|TKeating]] 00:27, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
Phil et al.,Rudy and other ESIP folks are interested in the 'GEOSS Scenario' for the Ispra meeting.  This group would like to help out with this...  I've cc'd a few people.
 
 
 
== Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 00:31, 22 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
AQ Scenario and Workspace: The air quality scenario for the Ispra Workshop will be maintained on the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349 OGC Site]. In addition, wiki workspace for the development of the AIP Air Quality Scenario has been established on the ESIP Wiki. The community is encouraged to contribute their ideas here.
 
 
 
===Re: Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:StuFrye|StuFrye]] 12:27, 23 January 2008 (EST)===
 
 
 
There are many scenarios that cut across discipline areas, but which can be supported by the same set of tools and sensors.  The scenarios need to be constructed so that they can be demonstrated on a more global scale than under the AIP phase 1.  Restricting the scenario to a single region and single event does not show how the GEOSS offering scales to a global application, so we need to structure the scenarios to take advantage of the global nature of many of our tools and sensor platforms.  Air quality assessment should be a combination of modeled results and observation measurements.  There should be successive interaction between the models and the observation capabilities so that a feedback loop between the two can be demonstrated.  Air quality models should be structured so they accept real observations as well as simulated data as starting point inputs.  For smoke from wildfires, the starting point can be calculated by satellite observation from MODIS, Landsat, EO-1 and others.  A centroid calculation needs to be provided as a Web Feature Service that would feed the model with fire start locations from these satellites.  The model should produce a smoke map or visualization of the progression of a plume.  Predicted map should be compared to actual images acquired via sensor web autonomous triggers.  The image data should further be processed to create a smoke product...especially the EO-1 Hyperspectral data...as a Web Processing Service.  The discovery of these capabilities should be provided by user friendly portals, catalogs, clearinghouses, and registries.  The Components and Services Registry needs to be integrated with the Standards registry so they stay in synchronization.  The registries should be automatically harvested by the portals to construct the GEOSS offerings.  The Portals should also harvest clearinghouse and catalog data instead of being constructed by hand from survey responses supplied by participating organizations.  Scenarios should include unmanned robotic sensor platforms and in-situ continuous readout sensors as well as static data sets for mash-ups and visualization mapping.
 
 
 
====Re: Re: Wiki Workspace  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 14:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)====
 
Very good points, Stu!. The suggestion to make the scenario applicable to any region is indeed appropriate, since (1) Smoke from major fires occur over many areas of the world (2) many of datastes come from the same source (e.g. satellite, global surface weather obs); (3) the sensory-motor functionality, detection-assessment-action, is quite common to all regions and (4) sharing and integrating the resources and methods into a System of Systems is in the spirit of GEOSS. Also, iterative linking of smoke observations and models through data fusion and assimilation into models is also a very important a timely suggestion. Lets see what the observation and modeling communities can do to raise ''interoperability'' to the next level (obs-model).
 
 
 
===Re: Wiki Workspace - Attach this discussion to pilot scenario page??? -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 18:38, 25 January 2008 (EST)===
 
Rudy, Stefan, Everyone - how about we move this very useful discussion from here to the discussion page attached to the GEOSS AIOP Pilot Scenario page?  Seems this might be a lot more straightforward.  Thoughts??
 
 
 
== Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 00:55, 25 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
I've added / fleshed out a number of items to the scenario wiki.  A theme I am trying to build in there is that the public are relevant decision makers for AQ problems during a fire.  Media is an essential bridge to the public. 
 
 
 
I've uploaded a link [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/5/51/EPA_LessonsLearned_-_SoCalWildfire2007.pdf here] and in the Scenario wiki to a one page white paper that John White and I wrote about AirNow during the S. Calif. 2007 fires.  (This paper is submission to a USGEO paper on the USG response to the fires.)
 
 
 
===Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:JWhite|JWhite]] 14:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)===
 
This echoes what I was thinking...so I am with you.  Others may can provide a better GEO spin?
 
 
 
===Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 14:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)====
 
David:  Good comments!  I'll leave it to Rudy and John as to how best to incorporate them, but I think your comments are really at the root of
 
the whole scenario. You made me think of a few comments of my own.  I believe someone on one of the ADC calls pointed out the need for "large scale" scenarios, i.e. scenarios that cross national boundaries and are globally applicable.  I wonder if we might take a lesson from the Alaska  wildfire example, which Jim Szykman has examined in great detail.  That is almost a trans-national event, even though Alaska is technically a US state.  In that scenario, the fires started far from the typical population centers of the US, yet the ground-level impacts were felt in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky and maybe Georgia and Alabama. So, to me that says we should include transport in the scenario.  That automatically brings in satellite data -- both met and air quality -- and perhaps even a "fire detection" function.  The SERVIR case study from May 2007 is also an interesting one.  Basically, a smoke event ocurred in Central America.  Some thought it was a "toxic cloud" coming over from Africa.  SERVIR was able to quickly dispel that notion using back-trajectory models and visible sat. imagery.  So, it was attributed to local burning.  However, there was not an "AIRNow-like" component by which to issue any public health info.  Lastly, I wonder if we should include public health information in the scenario.  It is far-fetched, but I think it should be part of "the dream".  I would end the scenario with an examination of hospital admissions, doctor's office visits, etc.  That would allow a feedback loop for future scenarios in which better public information might lead to fewer hospital admissions.  The only thing is -- do we have health agencies in GEO?  Not sure. -- Phil
 
 
 
====Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 14:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)====
 
I don't think we are out of bounds to say we would like to see the public health folks using our data.  If they are not participating in
 
GEOSS now (and in the USG, health participation is weak) that does not mean we should not push for it. Further, I don't think of USG health agencies as the ones moving the ball forward on AQ epi work (or at least they don't have a monopoly). The GEOSS goal is to push data out to users, not just others 'within'GEOSS. It seems like the AIRNow 2007 Calif event and the SERVIR 2007 event are probably the best stories out there for real-time or near-real-time AQ response to fires.  Other examples???  That makes combining SERVIR with AIRNow rather exciting.  Actually doing GEOSS !!!! The transboundary events are certainly very interesting.  But the strong exposures are more local...  at a scale where transport really needs BlueSky RAINS.  Is that type of capability existing at SERVIR? Can it be made interoperable so that it can be?  Since we are building our perfect geoss machine of the future, it seems like we should pitch for such capabilities.
 
 
 
=====Re: Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:PDickerson|PDickerson]] 14:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)=====
 
Good question on BSK.  I don't know the answer!  I was thinking very simplistically -- using SERVIR as a "fire spotter", then perhaps doing
 
some sort of modeling to guess where a smoke plume was going.  I think BSK has that capability, but I'm not sure that SERVIR is using the same
 
models.  In any event, I think the concept is valid -- using satellite to detect fire, then using a compilation of tools and data to predict
 
the plume, followed by ground truthing to measure plume impact and public health.  So, the only transboundary phenomenon I was thinking of
 
was transport of the smoke.  In Jim's example, the smoke was high above the ground once it left Alaska, but had measurable PM2.5 concentrations
 
in the SouthEast.  From a purely health-based perspective, EPA couldn't be of any use while the smoke was aloft, but in the future it would be
 
great to know it was coming! Anyway, I was using Alaska as an example only because the California fires were on such a small scale and don't exactly scale up to a GEOSS example all by themselves. Also, BSK might be the perfect tool to plug in, but I'm not well versed on it.  I bet Rudy or Stefan can address that quite well.
 
 
 
======'''Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding in the media, public as actors... -- [[User:Sfalke|Sfalke]] 14:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)'''======
 
Incorporating Bluesky forecasting would be valuable. In one of our NASA projects as part of NASA's Sensor Web Program, we're working on the use and development of interoperable web service interfaces to foster information flow between sensors and models. The Bluesky model is one of our target models. The group at the Forest Service and Sonoma Technology is presently redesigning the Bluesky framework so that it is modular (and therefore more suitable for integration in a service oriented framework). There's still a lot of work to be done before the model components are "interoperable" or can be "plugged" in but I like the idea of including smoke forecasts and long range transport in the GEOSS scenario to see what could be done for the pilot. The input data we've been working with include surface data, satellite observations (the usual MODIS but also the "taskable" hyperspectral EO-1), and a NASA-Ames UAV (which is somehow involved in the SERVIR project - so another link between those efforts)
 
I'll work on putting together a write-up and posting it to the wiki.
 
 
 
== Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Syoung|Syoung]] 12:11, 28 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
I'm not seeing a discussion of fire-specific data as an input. Not that I know this stuff, but I'm guessing there is a need for estimates of the types and quantities of combusted material, and for characterizations of the fire behavior, especially how high up the smoke is going, which I assume is a function both of atmospheric conditions and the behavior of the fire itself.
 
 
 
I'm also wondering about aviation uses. I know that it's a very big deal to track volcanic ash plumes and keep airplanes away from them (especially because volcanic ash kills jet engines). I don't know how much the aviators care about major smoke events - ?? There might be room for further development of potential impacts on ground transportation, too.
 
 
 
===Re: Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 20:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)===
 
Steve, Regarding users in aviation and surface transportation, here is a broader list of users/decision-makers that could benefit from the smoke Pilot. It is understood that we cannot address each in detail. However, this list would be important to identify to whom a smoke event trigger should be sent to.
 
* '''Informing and advising the Public'''
 
** General Public Information - Newspaper, TV...
 
** Public Health - surface concentration, (American Lung Assoc.)
 
** Public Safety - Road visibility (DOT), Aviation visibility (FAA) 
 
* '''Air Quality Regulatory Decision-Support'''
 
** Exceptional Event Documentation (State, Regional, Federal)
 
** Smoke Transport - Inter-Regional, International, Inter-Continental (LRTP, HTAP)
 
*''' Atmospheric Science Decision Support'''
 
** Smoke Emission Source Characterization
 
** Transport Mechanisms, Distances, Spatial-Temporal pattern
 
** Kinetic Processes
 
 
 
====Re: Re: Fire data; aviation users? -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 13:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)====
 
Rudy, you've nicely summed up the three communities that ultimately need support from GEOSS AQ data.
 
 
 
Do we need to identify one of these to focus on in Ispra?  It seems that the work on the wiki has mainly focused on identifying data sources and resources / tools.  Is this job for after Ispra?
 
 
 
== Scenario Background Added -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 20:46, 28 January 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
Given the short time for the smoke scenario preparation we are now feeding information into the "pool" in a piece-meal fashion. The new pieces are links to previous Smoke Scenarios as developed for FASTNET and for the NASA Data System Vision. They are found under Historical Smoke Scenarios on the front page of the [[GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario|wiki]]. We also added another scenario resource: [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Generic_Smoke_Scenario#Scenario_Events Generic AIP Smoke Scenario]. We hope to merge this with the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Pilot_Scenario smoke scenario] that you have on the wiki. So, this is just a heads up on what is coming down the pipeline for us to work on.
 
 
 
== New Scenarios!!! --[[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 20:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)  ==
 
 
 
We've changed things quite a bit.  Here are three scenarios we would like to present next week. 
 
 
 
A. [[AIP AQ Scenario A: Smoke and Dust| Smoke and Dust events]] - with a focus on understanding the events, as opposed to real-time / forecast<br>
 
B. [[AIP AQ Scenario B: Model - Data Synthesis|Model evaluation with modern observational tools]].  <br>
 
C. [[AIP AQ Scenario C: forecasts|AQ forecasts]], particularly in areas with a lack of ambient monitors.
 
 
 
This is a big change, to broaden the 'issues' involved while we focus a bit on the decisions we are interested in (as opposed to specifics about the data inputs).
 
 
 
We've created three new pages linked on the front page to these 3 scenarios.  As you'll see these pages are largely shameless copies of existing pages.  As such they aren't yet even internally consistent.  PLEASE HELP us clean these up!  Thanks!
 
 
 
===Re: New Scenarios!!!  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 16:45, 31 January 2008 (EST)===
 
Dear Colleagues: The submission of additional [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Talk:GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario#New_Scenarios.21.21.21_--Davidmccabe_20:19.2C_30_January_2008_.28EST.29 scenario items by EPA] to the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_Pilot_Scenario  AIP Scenario] and the subsequent discussion at the ESIP telecon is the most delightful development I can think of. It provides new ideas and dynamics into the Pilot process. Based on the various conversations, the EPA group can fill in the scenario template which appropriately takes into account the information needs for scientific assessment (historical, in-depth (re)analysis, modeling, etc), as well as real-time/forecast information needs during events.
 
 
 
I know that this is very pretentious thing to say, but I am certain that there WILL be a positive outcome. The vigorous constructive exchange on the telecon about the scenario(s) shows that this group has determination and means business. Also, I cant resist to invoke an [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/b/b7/Team_Development.ppt academic perspective] on group development. This group has evidently moved from the Forming and Storming phases to the Norming (consensus) phase. According to some academics, the preceding Storming phase is a necessary condition for building robust and successful groups. Now we ARE a group. (...soft background music in the background )
 
 
 
== GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Flindsay|Flindsay]] 31 January 2008 ==
 
 
 
Hi Ernie,  just to give you a heads up on the outcome of the telecon today.  Greg was on and I think we (NASA) have a consensus on at least how we can approach work on a AQ pilot for the upcoming meeting in Ispra.  We ended up having a pretty wide ranging discussion on the topic but there was some slight differences of opinion concerning the scope of the pilot and the role of science versus that of delivering some societal benefit.  EPA appears to have some of its won differences on that score, but we concluded the Air Now effort would remain an end point for some collection of data and services being delivered to it.  Also, EPA offered a mini-scenario that would focus on smoke and dust treated as a ‘exceptional event for state and local AQ managers.  I do not have anything more nailed down that this, though we collectively agreed that we should focus on what and who is on hand in the AQ community we are forming around other efforts... such as our NO2 work.  Any other thoughts on tying in the ACC would be great.  I’ll begin with the documents you have already sent.
 
 
 
===Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Ehilsenrath|Ehilsenrath]] 31 January 2008===
 
Frank Thanks for the update. However your message was not specific as to what the approach to Ispra actually will be. I may have made a tactical error by not having Jack Fishman, his EPA and NOAA collaborators, or me on hand to participate in this telecon to put this ACC project  in the right perspective.  But we appreciate [[AIP_AQ_Scenario_A:_Smoke_and_Dust |ESIP participation]].
 
 
 
====Re: Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Jszykman|Jszykman]] 1 February 2008====
 
All, I think this is more of a FYI right now, but I received the following e-mail from Ernie yesterday.  I am not sure what was discussed yesterday because I was not aware of this call, but this seems related the CEOS-ACC project Jack is leading. Frank would it be possible for you to provide some more details to the group on what is being discussed within ESIP? Also, should someone from the current ACC project join into the ESIP call later this morning?
 
 
 
=====Re: Re: Re: GEOSS AIP Telecon Aftermath -- [[User:Flindsay|Flindsay]] 1 February 2008=====
 
Hi Jim, I have added two folks to this email exchange, Stefan Falke and Rudy Husar.  They head up the ESIP’s Air Quality efforts and of course have their own independent research and analysis efforts.  Both Stefan and Rudy have been very active in the build up to the Ispra meeting where the GEOSS pilots will be initiated.  Instead of speaking for them, I was hoping they could respond to this group with a few details of current AQ activities under the auspices of the ESIP Federation??? I’ll be happy to chime in with any other information that may be helpful.  As many of you are aware John White from EPA, Stuart Fyre GSFC, and I will be attending the Ispra meeting in support of this effort.
 
 
 
 
 
== AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC  -- [[User:TerryKeating|TerryKeating]] 2 February 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
John, Rudy, and others,
 
 
 
I managed to go back in and reinput the material that I lost last night. So I think that the scenario is ready to go to the OGC site.  Should I mail this to George?  If I don't here back by tonight, that is what I will do. http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario
 
 
 
The wiki-markup text of the scenario is copied here (and as an attachment), in case that is a better way to move it.
 
 
 
When I get a chance later today, I will try to do more with the presentation template.  My thinking about this was to help prepare a presentaiton that summarizes the scenario describes and then shows a number of examples of things that have already been done.  David has pulled together some material for the examples.
 
 
 
===Re: AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008===
 
Good, I transfer the scenario to the OGC site along with the updated nano-report of the process....George is  already on the move.
 
 
 
Dave you can upload any slides you have onto the wiki...and you can continuously update it there I am making the slide showing the "Community of Practice" process
 
 
 
... and I hope that for the sake of transparency  to the others (the current and future members of the Group), its OK to place these conversations on the wiki..?!
 
 
 
===Re: AIP Scenario Submitted to OGC  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008===
 
Hello AQ Cluster, Huh, what a Zone experience. My humble, objective and very tempered opinion is that the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario GEOSS AIP Air Quality scenario] that John White has started and Terry Keating manufactured from the available parts is  :) :) ....AWESOME!
 
 
 
* The [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario Unified Scenario] on the wiki  now occupies the place for the  Submitted Scenario
 
* The same has been submitted to the [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349 official OGC site] for George and the others in AIP along with a [http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349#comment-400 comment].
 
 
 
A reality issue: The Pilot that is to execute this 'dream scenario'  will take time to do. Really!  My concern is not to get locked into an unrealistic  time frame of months to execute the Pilot. (That was the case for the first AIP Pilot). If we are in this for the long-haul, should we explore with George Percivall and the AIP Brass if there is a way to execute the Pilot in stages?  Certainly the AQ Data Network will take time..and time.   
 
 
 
This Scenario preparation was a short, intense, participatory and productive experience. The ESIP AQ Cluster and Stefan's telecon sessions  were a vital forum for interaction, so was the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario ESIP AQ wiki workspace]. For those who could not participate in the Scenario development, the AIP process is not over...in fact it has barely begun. The Pilot is yet to come. If interested, please join us on the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/GEOSS_AIP_AQ_Scenario AIP Community of Practice] (GEOSS lingo for  this kind of group)  ESIP website.
 
 
 
May a successful AIP Pilot be our reward!
 
 
 
Rudy
 
 
 
 
 
== Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 1 February 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
Another thing. George Percivall just sent out this [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=26451 ppt template] to be used for the Pilot presentations and discussion. Certainly, John White's presentation of the scenario stuff should be on this template. We can add one slide on the scenario preparation process... somewhat along this line.
 
 
''During the short period, Jan 21-31, 2008, there was vigorous and productive discussion on various refinements to the initial EPA scenario. Telecon meetings and the wiki workspace were used to conduct the interaction of the diverse multi-agency-state-academic-industry group. These fed significant new ideas into the Pilot Scenario preparation process. Based on the various inputs, the EPA group was able to prepare a consensus scenario which takes into account both the information needs for scientific and policy assessment (historical, in-depth (re)analysis, modeling, etc), as well as for real-time analysis and forecasting during air pollution events. This scenario should provide a solid basis for the AQ scenario discussion at the Feb 4-5 Ispra AIP workshop. Also, I think that it would be meaningful to have Frank Lindsay present a few slides (using this template) during the Air Quality Session.
 
''
 
 
 
===Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 2 February 2008 (EST)===
 
Terry,
 
* Attached is a Scenario Process slide for the presentation.
 
* It would be good for you to send a note to George that the scenario is submitted on the OGC site.
 
 
 
====Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:TerryKeating|TerryKeating]] 2 February 2008 (EST)====
 
John, Here is a start at a presentation.  It begins with a summary of the scenario description and then moves to examples.
 
 
 
=====Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 3 February 2008 (EST) =====
 
Hi, Nice work,again, on the AIP AQ Scenario PPT. The scenario PPT will probably go public on the OGC site soon after the meeting. I touched up the [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/7/7b/08_02_02_AIP_AQ_scenario.ppt uploaded PPT] with a  few  initial links... and the front page. More links could be entered over the next few days. Will John have the time to go through the examples? How about time for Frank Lindsay's piece? Maybe other presenters?
 
 
 
======Re: Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Davidmccabe|Davidmccabe]] 3 February 2008 (EST)======
 
Frank, John, I've made a couple changes to the powerpoint presentation.  Here is a new link: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/e/eb/08_02_03_AIP_AQ_scenario.ppt
 
 
 
One word: the idea behind the last slide, if it isn't clear, is simply a plea that we not have to build a new pipe (ie months of code) everytime somebody has a new scientific or policy idea.  Or the same idea from a different location (mesoamerica vs. california).  The air quality community has built a lot of interconnected datasets and systems over the years, and we can impress these folks with that and say, 'moving forward, let's do it in a better way.' Have a great time there, we are looking forward to hearing about it!
 
 
 
======Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scenario PPT  -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]] 4 February 2008 (EST)======
 
Hi all. I have reviewed the web pages and downloaded the ppt. Frank has good intuition - the networks are poor. I am tethering my blackberry to my laptop and it is very slow and unstable. One desktop in lobby - 486 I think with no usb port. Sent wiki pages via pdf to my hotmail account - then managed to download to desktop (all in italian) and print. :-). Took a long time - can't believe I would have faster internet with my home dial-up than here...but hey. Don't have time to send 2.5 meg ppt - hopefully will print at JRC today.
 
Thanks again for all of the prep work - I need to learn all of the acronyms/applications/projects..... :-) Will be fun today I am sure - weather lousy though.
 
 
 
== Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]]  3 February 2008 (EST) ==
 
 
 
Hello Dr LeDrew, I note from George Pecivall's schedule that you will be discussing the UIC/ADC Collaboration at the Ispra AIP workshop. Our air quality community appreciates that ADC and your UIC Committee (Gary Foley,  yourself, Brendan Kelly, and others) is pursuing a strengthened  UIC/ADC connection. The incorporation of an Air Quality
 
scenario into the Pilot is an outstanding opportunity to contribute to that effort as part of a domain-specific Pilot.
 
 
 
For your information, the self-organizing group that has prepared the AIP Pilot - Air Quality Scenario appears to be an emerging "Community of Practice" interested in Air Quality applications using the GEOSS Architecture and User Interface Committee principles. A slide from [http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/3/35/08_02_02_AIP_AQ_scenario_CommPractice.ppt John White's presentation] at Ispra has the relevant links. The Air Quality group is keenly interested in perusing and strengthening UIC/ADS link in this scenario through the continued development of the principles and methods for Communities of Practice - and testing those in this Air Quality Pilot.
 
Input and guidance from Gary Foley, yourself, Brendan Kelly, George Percivall and others will be appreciated. Cordially, Rudy Husar
 
  
 
==Ispra Meeting Report -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]]  13 February 2008 (EST)==
 
==Ispra Meeting Report -- [[User:Jwhite airnow|Jwhite airnow]]  13 February 2008 (EST)==

Revision as of 12:20, April 24, 2008

/Archive 1

Ispra Meeting Report -- Jwhite airnow 13 February 2008 (EST)

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know the ADC meeting went well. There was about a dozen attendees at the Air Quality and Health Session (Frank Lindsay has the actual list) and we walked through the scenario that was developed on the ESIP wiki. We received some feedback and the good thing was no gaps were identified. There was no objection to any of the areas outlined in the scenario. The action items resulting from these discussions are to: 1) revisit and finalize the Air Quality and Health Scenario if we feel it is needed (we rushed up to the last minute), 2) Identify other organizations or potential GEOSS users to get additional input, feedback, and buy-in (i.e., obviously others were not at the meeting, not included in the GEOSS loop - so can we reach out to them to see if they can provide input/feedback - such as EEA), and 3) Work with the GEO UIC to finalize scenario (get their input - see email thread below) for the upcoming CFP in March 2008.

An additional action item is to work with Dr. Ellsworth LeDrew (below), the other co-chair of the GEO UIC, in developing a one day workshop/demonstration at the upcoming GEO UIC meeting in Toronto, Canada specifically for the Air Quality and Health Scenario. The GEO UIC wants to highlight the Air Quality and Health Scenario to its members to show the progress GEOSS is making.

As an aside - the other benefits gained during the meeting is a better understanding of international standards (for the AIRNow-International scoping study - will get reference materials from OGC website from the meeting) as well as GEOSS itself. We (AIRNow) need to further identify and register our available data and information in the GEOSS registries/Clearinghouse/User Portals/Catalogs. Thanks! jw

On AIP Evolution, Persistance -- 15 February 2008 (EST) -- Rhusar 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

080214 AIPilot Evolution Persistency.png In his Ispra AIP presentation, George Percivall, OGC states that based on participants feedback, there is a modified approach to AIP: (1) Increase the influence of system users; (2) Make the process iterative, evolutionary with open participation; (3) Seek operational systems, not demos (4) Phased/iterative approach to operational systems - structured plan within each phase. This evolutionary approach will make it easier to achieve the desired persistent networked AQ Information systems. Thanks George! Rhusar 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Rhusar 19:47, 4 March 2008 (EST)

This is to inform the ESIP Air Quality Cluster and other interested parties of the upcoming workshop,"User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario”. The purpose of the workshop is to use the Air Quality Scenario to develop and validate the interaction between the User Interface and Architecture activities of GEOSS.

More on this:2008-03-04: GEOSS User Interface Meet, May 6-8, Toronto

Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Ellsworth LeDrew

Greetings:Thankyou for taking the initiative on this and we welcome your posting. We would be pleased to help with your continued development of the air quality theme within GEO. Regards Ells