[ESIP-AQ] granularity for GCI?

[Bagwell, Ross E. (GSFC-580.0)[COLUMBUS TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES INC]]

Erin,

I agree with classifying coverages as datasets, as the terminology is more in line with the geospatial world. A coverage is not an attribute as much as it is a prescribed set of data, having a number of feature attribute tables with one-to-one related records.

Ross



From: esip-aqcluster-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [mailto:esip-aqcluster-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Erin Robinson
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:01 PM
To: Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)
Cc: Zhao, Peisheng (GSFC-610.0)[GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY]; Johnson, James E. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]; esip-aqcluster at rtpnet.org; Ted Habermann
Subject: Re: [ESIP-AQ] granularity for GCI?

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<mailto:erinrobinson at esipfed.org>
www.esipfed.org<http://www.esipfed.org>
[http://images.wisestamp.com/facebook.png]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Federation-of-Earth-Science-Information-Partners-ESIP/150015055044779> [http://images.wisestamp.com/twitter.png] <http://www.twitter.com/ESIPFed>  [http://images.wisestamp.com/vimeo.png] <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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:301-614-5185>
>
>
>

--
Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185<tel:301-614-5185>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-aqcluster/attachments/20120130/7cb31736/attachment.html>