Talk:GEOSS AIP AQ Scenario
Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- 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 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
Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- Rhusar 19:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Hello George, Doug, Josh, This is to thank you for the opportunity make a short presentation on Air Quality Data Systems and the GEOSS Architecture at the March OGC TC meeting in Stl. Louis. Your feedback and encouragement to seek closer linkage with the OGC and GEOSS activities is appreciated. As part of the preparation for the GEOSS AIP Air Quality Scenario, we hope to engage our emerging Community of Practice (CoP) to refine the ideas on how to interface the existing AQ data systems with the GOSS Core Architecture as well as with the work of the ADC and UIC Committees. Any additional feedback you may have will be well received.
Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- ELeDrew 20:00, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Greetings: Do you have time for a phone call before tomorrow pm? Jerry Johnston, Hans-Peter Plag and I have a telecon then to finalize the May 5 workshop agenda in Toronto. Jerry just found out, and it didn't click for me, the work you have been doing on the ADC call for participation for the Air Quality Scenario, and it might be the best case study for our work. Basically we want participants to form small groups of actors to fill out the registry tables of Hans--Peter (separate email sent to you after this) from the users perspective. I see you are registered, so perhaps you can help mould this to be of benefit for you. I have just talked to George Percivall. I have called John White but he is not at his phone at the moment, but I copy him. Ells
Re: Re: Ispra AIP: UIC-ADC Connection -- Rhusar 20:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Ells, In response to your note, I begun filling in the tables rows for Users, Applications and User-App Links. http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Image:UIC_Air_Quality_Tables.doc The AQ cast in the distribution list is encouraged to edit these tables. I will also continue to do so... we can discuss this on the GEOSS UIC Toronto wiki page shortly. For others, the most concise version of the AQ AIP Scenario is in this PPT http://www.ogcnetwork.net/system/files/08_02_03_AIP_AQ_scenario_jw.ppt. The full 'organisational memory' of our workgroup is on the wiki.
Looking at the tables, a key consideration is that the AQ Pilot is geared toward solidifying the networking infrastructure which will be able to support the needs of multiple AQ Applications.as well as multiple users. Also, we have been considering the full array of stakeholders in the value chain from data providers to processors, mediators ... to the 'end users' of the information systems.
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
Re: Ispra Meeting Report -- Flindsay 12:54, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
AQ Breakout - Ipsra Pilot Workshop, Feb 2008
- John White, EPA
- Francesca Casale, ESA
- Lucien Wald, Ecole Des Mines De Paris
- David Arctur, OGC
- Robert Thomas, Compusult
- Ellsworth LeDrew, U of Waterloo, IEEE
- Stu Frye, NOBLIS/NASA
- Gianlucs Wraschi, JRC
- Michel Millot, JRC
- Jiashen Zhang, CMA
- Chu Ishida, JAXA
- Lawrence McGovern, INCOSE, NGC
- George Percivail, OGC
- Francis Lindsay, NASA
On AIP Evolution, Persistance -- 15 February 2008 (EST) -- Rhusar 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)
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.
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
Re: Re: "Workshop on User Validation of GEOSS Architecture Using an Air-Quality Scenario” on May 5, Toronto -- Rhusar 19:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Agenda posted for the Toronto meeting.
Archived the discussion from before Ispra -- Davidmccabe 16:38, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
I've moved all of the discussion that occurred before the Ispra meeting to a new Archive page. It's all there.
Rewrite after Toronto: more focus on users, connections -- Davidmccabe 15:28, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I added a section to the AIP scenario. This is a new overview.
I will soon remove most of the "Summary" section, and work the remainder of the summary into the overview.
My goal is to address the concerns we heard in Toronto, that were better expressed on the phone on Friday.
I'd like us to keep the structure with the three decision makers (LR pollutant transport policy-maker, exceptional events AQ manager, and the public) end users. This is in fitting with the described task from GEO ("Write the scenario from the decision maker's POV, e.g. the scenario should avoid identifying details of info systems").
However, I do want to do more, to push this ideally in both the directions that I was pushing (focus on data fusion) and those that Rudy was advocating (focus on upstream users and the data connections that they need). I tried to explain where this would go in the overview section.
Next, I'd propose a more specific Actors section, which will try to touch on many of the boxes that Rudy and I drew on the diagrams we uploaded during Friday's telecon.
Likewise, making the information needs a bit more specific to the scenario described. This allows us to work in needs for data fusion, but not just data fusion.
Perhaps this is a somewhat more specific (at least upstream) description of the scenario than GEO asked for, but given the broad questions we are asking, I think this is appropriate.
Thoughts?? Demands to Revert???
UIC/ADC Pilot -- Rhusar 19:19, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Hello UIC - AQ group, A brief update on the happenings: At the by-weekly ADC telecon for the Architecture Implementation Pilot (AIP) today, we have briefed the ADC subgroup on the Toronto UIC AQ workshop/meeting with two slides. These are linked to the OGC AIP telecon meeting pages. If there is a problem with that open exposure, please let me know, can be fixed.
- A question was raised as to what are the specifics of the AQ scenario, (so participants can begin the Pilot preparations).
- George Percivall also re-emphasized that a feature of the scenario should be the applicability to many global regions.
The preoccupation of the ADC subgroup is the preparation of the Call for Participation (CFP) for the AIP. The CFP editors (George & Co) expect a contribution to the CFP from the UIC group, to be submitted by the end of May. (See discussion)
Action item: Preparing UIC input to the CFP.
The CFP is a complex document, covering a wide range of topics (vertically and horizontally), prepared by many contributors. Currently, the CFP_08 is just an outline, but George indicated that CFP_08 will based largely on CFP_07. For your consideration and reading pleasure :), here is a link to theCFP_07 (the yellow highlights are mine).
As I see it, for this UIC/ADC Pilot, the UIC contributions to the CFP would need to include both
- general, UIC "architectural" information as well as
- UIC input the Air Quality Scenario (e.g. data for H-P Plug's UNSPU; value chain/value network for specific scenarios)
While seeking further guidance from the Chairs on the next steps.. it seems that the stage for a productive, working-level UIC-ADC cooperation through the AIP has been set up by the Chairs. Its now up to the actors and stage-workers to perform??.
Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- Davidmccabe 19:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Hello George, John White and myself have rewritten the Air Quality Scenario. This rewrite (which we are just finishing up now) is an attempt to respond to what we heard in Toronto and from the community. Our goals in rewriting:
a. more focus on the end users
b. also spell out the other users along the value chain, more directly connected to the scenario
c. point out the common needs of all the users (and why we wrote such a broad scenario!)
- greater connectivity, interoperability
- utilization of interoperability and SOA to facilitate creation of *operational* tools for data intercomparison and fusion
d. fit the scenario into the Enterprise Viewpoint template
The scenario can be viewed (and modified) at http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/AIP_AQ_Unified_Scenario Note that we have kept the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS. We hope this is what you need; we need to know what the next steps are, particularly for the development of section 126.96.36.199.4, the enterprise model. The existing scenario can easily be ported into a word document or similar format (which I would be happy to do!). However, let us know if other materials are needed.
Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- GPercivall 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
David, Thanks to you, John, and all contributors for preparing this AQ scenario. A particularly good choice is your emphasis to keep the scenario broad, to emphasize the wide variety of users that will be served by GEOSS value chain for AQ. In retrospect, the CFP template for the scenarios I previously provided may be too narrow. Your approach will serve as a prime example for scenarios in the CFP. As I integrate the wiki page into the CFP document, it may be that the scenario is a bit long and will require some editing. Perhaps, I attempt this editing and make the CFP available for your review. The CFP can include the URL for the full wiki version. Alternatively, you could edit the wiki version into about 2 pages in MS Word. Please advise how you would like to proceed.
Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- Jwhite airnow 19:19, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Hi all - There are still some loose ends in the wiki page (unless David or others addressed last night/today)....how much time do we have George?Next week is the EPA Science Forum....have folks had a chance to see all of the revisions David and I posted? I may can take a stab at narrowing things down Tuesday/Wednesday. Thanks!
Re: Re: Re: Re: UIC/ADC Pilot -- Erinmr 15:38, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Word Version Submitted! Davidmccabe 12:56, 3 June 2008 (EDT) -- Davidmccabe 12:56, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I got some feedback and made most of the suggested changes. The 'final' Word version of of the scenario Media:AQ_2008_CFP.doc has the same name as the version I posted last week. (For the sake of documentation, the version I posted last week is here.)
In theory, we are 'done.' However, we refer to the 'full version' of the scenario in the word document with a link to it, so we can certainly improve that. I'd propose we 'hide' or at least de-emphasize the wiki two-page version. I'd like to cast a enthusiastic vote for focusing and cleaning up the wiki workspace so that it is clear what we are working on, paring (or segregating to an archive) older material.