Difference between revisions of "Talk:NSF Air Quality Observatory:AQ Observatory Proposal"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
This page contains discussion on various aspects of the proposal.
 
This page contains discussion on various aspects of the proposal.
  
== 'Win-theme' for the AQ Observatory project ==
+
== 'Win-theme' for the AQ Observatory project? ==
  
 
Based on our discussions I would propose a common (win-) theme for the AQO project along the following line:
 
Based on our discussions I would propose a common (win-) theme for the AQO project along the following line:

Revision as of 00:24, January 20, 2006

Links to: AQO Proposal Main Page > Proposal | Proposal Discussion| NSF Solicitation | NSF Solicitation Discussion | People



  • To add to the discussion, log in to DataFed wiki
  • Begin each entry with ====Username: Subject====
  • To respond, add dots ====......Username: Subject====
  • Indent response text by adding : for each tab.
  • Sign your entry by ending with '~~~~',








This page contains discussion on various aspects of the proposal.

'Win-theme' for the AQ Observatory project?

Based on our discussions I would propose a common (win-) theme for the AQO project along the following line:

There is already an infrastructure for access/use of met data (Unidata) and for AQ data (DataFed)
Each serves their respective communities well, but not the sister communities, so:
AQO will extend these working domain infrastructures by making them interoperable at find/access/use level
Add new synergistic capabilities arising from combined resources and tools
Thus, the prototype AQO will demonstrate operational inter-domain networking [and encourage other nodes to join?]

Variations on this theme would be stated in several sections of the proposal. Is this our key theme? Is it too little, much, just right? Enough NSF-appeal?

Rhusar