[ESIP-all] ESO Session on Developing Standards & Technologies at the summer ESIP

Tue May 5 13:43:13 EDT 2015

Siri Jodha,

We don’t yet know exactly what contributions will be presented at the Summit, but Linda, Simon Cox, and I are organizing it, so we hope to have a good dialogue on that theme.

Best,

Josh

> On May 5, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Siri Jodha Khalsa via ESIP-all <esip-all at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 
> suggest courting someone involved with the GeoSemantics Summit to talk about "bringing the informal linked data and formal ontology worlds closer together in the geospatial standards development process"
> OGC calls for participation in GeoSemantics Summit
> 
> Contact: info at opengeospatial.org <mailto:info at opengeospatial.org?utm_source=phplist380&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=OGC+calls+for+participation+in+GeoSemantics+Summit>
> 30 April 2015 – On 3 June 2015, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) GeoSemantics Domain Working Group will host a summit, "GeoSemantics: Standards Intersect Ontologies". This summit will be part of the OGC’s June 2015 Technical Committee meeting in Boulder, Colorado. The Summit’s central topic is the application of ontologies in standards-based geo-information infrastructures.
> 
> The idea of the Semantic Web has been around for well over 10 years, and more recently principles of Linked Data have been gaining a lot of momentum. The Semantic Web involves data elements and connections between them being published on the Web in order to provide concrete opportunities for experimentation in semantic applications. Well defined, community agreements on semantics hold considerable promise for solving harmonization and integration of geospatial data sources from different regions, domains, and communities. Due to the universality of location and time geospatial (and temporal) semantics particularly have potential for advancing integration of both geospatial and non-geospatial data. At the same time, ontologies are increasingly a part of formal information specifications and models. This OGC summit is focused on bringing the informal linked data and formal ontology worlds closer together in the geospatial standards development process. This Call is for participants to share knowledge, present examples, and address issues involving geospatial ontologies. Topics of particular relevance include:
> 
> Existing generic ontologies or vocabularies for the geospatial domain. GeoSPARQL is the only current standard, but it is focused on geometry; are there improvements to be suggested? Which other candidates are there? For example, there is the U.S. government's National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) Enterprise Ontology (NEO) and NSG Feature Data Dictionary (NFDD). The W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group will address this topic in its "Best Practice" deliverable. However, the geospatial domain has specialized needs not likely to be addressed by the W3C. Should OGC address these needs with a central geospatial ontology standard, an assortment of geospatial ontology patterns, or general rules for formation of geospatial ontologies from other semantic / syntactic representations?
> Should OGC register existing or proposed domain specific ontologies/vocabularies such as Semantic Sensor Networks (SSN), USGS National Map (TNM) ontologies, OWS-10 geospatial ontologies, etc.
> There are many standardized spatial information models available as UML from ISO and OGC, as well as from INSPIRE and various national bodies. Work is ongoing in deriving OWL ontologies from these models; one approach is being developed in ISO 19150-2. What is the state of the art and any current issues with this sort of rule-based mapping?
> Linked Data and graph data models. Besides facilitating formal semantics, do graph models add value to spatial data representation in and of themselves? Are there problems yet to solve with graph models in relation to spatial data?
> Another application of semantics involves the use of ontologies in conjunction with OGC web services. What are the practices and issues here?
> Geosemantics issues have been worked on in the present OGC Testbed 11 as well as in several previous OWS testbeds. What are their lessons for the adoption of ontology and formal semantics?
> To be considered for participation in the summit, please send a short abstract of your proposed contribution (200 – 400 words) to Linda van den Brink (l.vandenbrink [at] geonovum.nl <http://geonovum.nl/>) so that we can develop a final agenda appropriate to the interests and backgrounds of the participants.
> 
> Event Registration
> 
> To register for the event please visit the registration page <https://portal.opengeospatial.org/public_ogc/register/1506geosemantics.php?utm_source=phplist380&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=OGC+calls+for+participation+in+GeoSemantics+Summit>.
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/15 4:21 PM, Enloe, Yonsook K. (GSFC-580.0)[COLUMBUS TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES INC] via ESIP-all wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> We are looking for a few more good talks about developing and emerging standards and technologies at the ESDIS Standards Office session at the summer ESIP meeting.
>> Please let us know if you are interested.
>> 
>> Yonsook Enloe
>> Allan Doyle
>> Helen Conover
>> 
>> ----------
>> 
>> Abstract for the ESO session: 
>> 
>> ESO (ESDIS Standards Office) Session on Developing & Emerging Standards and Technologies
>>  
>> NASA’s ESDIS (Earth Science Data and Information Systems) Standards Office’s current Standards Process <http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/standards-and-references/standards-process-overview>[1] <x-msg://46/#_ftn1>requires complete documentation of a candidate standard as well as examples of implementations before it is reviewed for approval as a NASA Earth Science Data Systems standard.
>>  
>> But what happens when NASA wants to evaluate and support a developing or emerging standard?   Quite often the documentation is not yet complete and experience with implementations can be very limited.  Instead of waiting for the developing standard to “firm up” or for multiple implementations to be developed over time (and this can be a lengthy time period), sometimes NASA’s ESDIS project has an interest in speeding up this process.  Timely evaluations of a developing standard would have a beneficial impact on its development both in terms of technical excellence and also to speed up the “firming up”. 
>>  
>> There are developing technologies and data management best practices that would be of enormous benefit to the Earth science community if these were reviewed and vetted in some way and then made more visible to the broader community.
>>  
>> In this session, we will look at several examples of developing standards and technologies, hear technical presentations for each, and then discuss the ESO end goal for each – whether a community standard, or best practice, or technical information note is anticipated. 
>>  
>> We invite you, as a member of the ESIP community, to give a talk about your developing standard, best practice, or technology.   We also have several invited presentations.  We have time for several presentations from the ESIP community. 
>>  
>> 1.     ESIP OpenSearch Best Practice, CEOS OpenSearch Best Practice, and Developer’s Guide – Doug Newman
>> 2.     Cloud Computing Recommendations – Brian Wilson
>> 3.     Guidelines for Provenance – Hook Hua
>> 4.     Guidelines and Templates for Data Recipes – Suresh SanthanaVannan
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> [1] <x-msg://46/#_ftnref1>http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/standards-and-references/standards-process-overview <http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/standards-and-references/standards-process-overview>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Yonsook Enloe
>> Columbus Technologies & Services, Inc
>> NASA GSFC/ESDIS Project
>> 704-576-8552
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ESIP-all mailing list
>> ESIP-all at lists.esipfed.org <mailto:ESIP-all at lists.esipfed.org>
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-all <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-all>
> 
> -- 
> Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
> National Snow and Ice Data Center
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
> http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa <http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa>
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550>
> _______________________________________________
> ESIP-all mailing list
> ESIP-all at lists.esipfed.org <mailto:ESIP-all at lists.esipfed.org>
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-all <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-all>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/private/esip-all/attachments/20150505/68a29c1d/attachment-0001.html>