[ESIP-AQ] granularity for GCI?

[Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)]

My concern with the registration of individual coverages in the GCI is that this approach works fine in the early, heady days of prototyping, but does not scale well once we get serious about populating it.  With everything.  The database may be able to handle it, but the user interfaces are then left to deal with the results, which comprise many, many records of vastly different scale/aggregation, from entire systems to individual variables.

However, having registered that concern, if the community consensus is to go that way, then we will proceed with all due expedience to start populating in that vein.

On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Zhao, Peisheng (GSFC-610.0)[GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY] wrote:

> It is noted the WCS 1.0 restricts the range to a single variable, i.e. one coverage only includes one variable. The WCS 1.1 or later remove this limitation.
>  
> From: Bagwell, Ross E. (GSFC-580.0)[COLUMBUS TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES INC] 
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM
> To: Erin Robinson; 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?
>  
> 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. 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 
>   
> 
> 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
> 
>  

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