[ESIP-AQ] granularity for GCI?

[Erin Robinson]

Hi Stefan, All -

The way we left things with the AQ Community Catalog was that individual
WCS coverages were registered. In ISO 19115 this was hierarchy
level=attribute. The scope codes are described here on the NOAA ISO
wiki<https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=ISO_Scope_Codes>.
Each coverage level record has a service identification object that
describes the WCS service and how to access. Theoretically a smart search
client could pull either the dataset or the service.

Since the ESIP Winter Meeting I have gone back to the AQ Community ISO
record to make some updates and bring it more inline with changes that have
occurred within ISO in the last 18 months or so. There are several things
that the community needs to discuss. The granularity of the records should
go on this list. I think classifying coverages as attributes may not be the
right thing - maybe coverages should be datasets? Would be a good addition
to the ESIP AQ agenda to discuss the record, in general.

Erin

*Erin Robinson*
Information and Virtual Community Director
Foundation for Earth Science | 314.369.9954 | erinrobinson at esipfed.org
www.esipfed.org
[image: Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Federation-of-Earth-Science-Information-Partners-ESIP/150015055044779>
 [image: Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/ESIPFed> [image:
Vimeo]<http://www.vimeo.com/esipfed>


On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) <
christopher.s.lynnes at nasa.gov> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Stefan Falke wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > I don't think we did finalize the approach to submitting/registering
> services with GCI. It may be good to expand the question to include other
> catalogs/registries to understand how they work. For example, at what level
> are resources registered in GCMD?
>
> Data collections aka Dataset_Series in ISO-speak.
>
> >  The AQ Community Catalog could be another example for defining the
> approach to registering data services. I don't recall whether items were
> registered at the WCS level or at the specific individual coverages level.
> I've copied Rudy and Erin to solicit their thoughts.
> >
> > The Community Catalog brings up another dimension to registering
> resources into GCI because the AQ Community Catalog itself was registered
> in the GCI - not its individual services directly. The GCI Clearinghouse
> was able to read the Web Accessible Folder of the AQ Community Catalog to
> get the individual services. But I think a question was how well the
> services and their metadata were captured in the GCI so that a user could
> do the type of 'deep' queries needed to get the specific services
> identified in the return of a search.
> >
> > In any case, another great reason for picking up the metadata group
> discussions. I talked with Glynis Lough (copied) last week and she agreed
> that metadata makes for an excellent focus topic for re-energizing the ESIP
> AQ Workgroup discussions. Maybe this could be incorporated in the next
> agenda.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) <
> christopher.s.lynnes at nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Stefan,
> >  Did we ever come to an agreement on what granularity to submit ACP
> resources to GCI?  One item for each coverage would be a bit much; one for
> the whole ACP could not give much detail on what's available.  Is there
> something in the middle?
> > --
> > Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-aqcluster/attachments/20120130/9adab888/attachment.html>