Skip navigation.
Home
OGC Network
 OGC® Home | OGC Network™ | OGC Forum
Home » The networks of OGC Network™ » GEOSS Architecture Implementation Pilot » AIP Phase 2 Call for Participation

AIP-2 CFP Clarifications

This page lists clarifications to the Call For Participation in Phase 2 of the Architecture Implementation Pilot.

There was a Clarification Teleconference on 18 July 2008, 1300 UTC.  The webex listed 39 participants in the session.

Clarification Telecon Discussions

  • Brief recap of AIP-2 CFP for IOC Augmentation
    • Main Body:  Goals; Master Schedule; How to Respond; Who can respond
    • Annex A:  Development process;  Roles
    • Annex B: Architecture; SBAs; Components; relation to GCI; relation AR-07-01
  • Discussion of Clarifications
    • Clarifications received prior to the Telecon
    • Clarifications from the telecon
  • Preparing for the Kickoff Workshop , Sept 25 and 26, Boulder
    • CFP Responses for Kickoff by September 1st
    • IP Team preparation for Kickoff
    • Logistics for Kickoff Workshop

AIP-2 CFP Clarifications

  1. Will the GEO Common Infrastructure (GCI) components (Portal, Clearinghouse, Registries) be able to participate the AIP? or excluded?
    •  Response: GCI components are key components of the AIP Phase 2. They are described in the CFP, in particular section 5.2 of Annex B. The GCI/IOC Task Force is focused on evaluation of the GCI Components as they were established for the IOC. Several GCI components will be augmented as part of AIP-2.
  2. How will the GEO Portal candidates participate in AIP-2?  Can a response to the CFP propose additions to the GEO Portals to support scenarios?
    • The architecture of the CFP identifies several client components: GEO Portal, Community Portals, Application Clients.  The GEO Portals have the mission of representing the entirety of GEOSS.  Whereas Community Portals are focused on specific SBAs or Communities of Interest - similar for Application Clients.  While the GEO Portal Candidates should provide the first level of support for scenarios, participants should consider a community portal or application client as the detailed interface for scenarios.
    • ESRI stated during the telecon they agree with the architecture and that ESRI would be enhancing their portal while working on AIP-2.  ESRI anticipates that the GEO Secretariat will need to agree that the portals can be augmented beyond their IOC (1 May 2008) state.
    • ESA provided an e-mail after the telecon that the ESA GEOPortal shall remain as a GEOSS general resources. ESA agrees that support for specific SBA scenario could be given better from a Community Portal, which can offer to the user specific interactions towards the specific SBA scenario. However, ESA will not exclude in the coming Phase 2 the support of one or more SBA scenarios from the ESA GEOPortal.  For this reason ESA, in agreement with the augmentation aims of the Phase 2, will plan some activities in order to be prepared to support some scenarios through direct interaction with scenario designers.  SBA Scenario needs will be evaluated through a requirements analysis and through an impact assessment of new requirements on the existing GEOportal in terms of implementation efforts and requested performances. At the end if the implementation will be feasible the GEOportal will be updated.  However it is intended that, as it is written in the CFP, the support to the scenario will happen invoking some web services and eventually through the integration of a graphical application provided by the service providers. It is also intended that the responsibility of operations and maintenance of web services and applications will be in charge to the services providers. 
    • During the telecon, their was agreement that there be only one instance of each GEO Portal candidate.  Separate instances for GCI evaluation and AIP-2 was not seen to be a good approach.
  3. Is there funding available for participants in the AIP-2?
    • Response: The CFP does not offer funding. Organizations are encouraged to work with GEO Members and Participating Organizations that may have funding to support participation in GEOSS AIP-2. 
  4. Can a response propose a community portal and community catalog and also anticipate interactions with the GEO Portal and Clearinghouse?
    • Yes.  All the commuity will benefit from having the community catalog accessed by the clearinghouse.  By searching the clearinghosue, the community portal will discover data beyond the community catalog.  And other use cases are possible.
    • The first step, as always, is to register the components and services in the GEOSS Registry.
  5. Can a reponse to the CFP propose to any of the three work areas (Scenario, Componetns, Architecture)?
    • Yes.  The responses should be as described in section 4 of the CFP Main Body.
  6. How long should a response be?
    • The length of a response will vary based upon the content offered by the participanting organization.  The extreme range is probably a minimum of 2 and maximum 50 pages.  The purpose of the CFP responses is to allow the AIP IP Team to prepare for the Kickoff Workshop agenda with a focus on coordination of participants; and for participants to review the other participants contributions.   Brevity is the soul of wit.
  7. How much should a response describe the methods for service interation?  Should for example a reponse describe a profile of OGC Sensor Observation Service or a specific metadata?
    • A key GEOSS architecture principle is that of Interoperability Arrangements which may be standards or special arrangements (See SIF page for more description).  The architecture goal is to basis the interopeability on the most widely available open standards with highest emphasis on international standards.  Responses should focus on Interoperability Arrangements with a preference for international standards.  A profile specific to a project or even specific to GEOSS will limit the interoperability.  SOS has been added to the architecture and will be the subject of several responses in AIP-2.  Adhearing to the SOS standard as much as possible with least amount of profiling is advised.  Several metadata profiles are described in the AIP CFP Annex-B.  At a minimum search and retrieval need to support the CSW core queryables, nearly identical to Dublin Core.   Schemas for metadata with more elements will be a topic of development in AIP-2.
  8. What is the level of participation that a participating organization should assume for AIP-2?
    • The effort for participation is of two main components: 1) participation in distributed communications and 2) service development and configuration.  After the Kickoff Workshop, all communications are distributed: webex, telecons, e-mail, wikis, etc.  It is anticpated that the telecon schedule will be as in AIP-1: a plenary telecon weekly with working group telecons as needed.  Working groups will be formed for SBAs and for implementation topics, e.g., clearinghouse.  The development and integration efforts for an organization will vary based upon the level of interoperability existing for the specific service.
  9. What level of persistence and peformance of the services is needed?
    • Section 6.2 of annex B of the CFP describes the goals for persistence.  It is not anticipated that all services will achieve those levels in AIP-2, but the intent is to work toward operational persistence.  Particpants in AIP-1 expressed that they are seeing an increasing number of requests.  A performance requirement for the GEO Web Portal was established to be up to 10000 hits per/hour performance.  This would presumably an order of magnitude (or two) higher than the peformance on a community service.
    • GEOSS is a system-of-systems where each system is assumed to be operational on its own and it provides servicess to GEOSS users on a best-effort basis.  This SoS approach is similar to other network federations that provide a robust environment, e.g., WWW.

 

AIP2 CFP Clarification Teleconference Logistics

Please find below logistics for July 18th telecon.

Topic: AIP/CFP clarification telecon
Date: Friday, July 18, 2008
Time: 1300 UTC  for Times around the world

Meeting Number: 707 609 948 

Meeting Password: geoss0

Please click the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting.

-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://geosec.webex.com/geosec/j.php?ED=107738697&UID=0&PW=9a7a8b651000031f0054
2. Enter your name and email address.
3. Enter the meeting password: geoss0
4. Click "Join Now".

-------------------------------------------------------
To join the teleconference only
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 866-469-3239
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300
Global call-in numbers: https://geosec.webex.com/geosec/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=107738697&tollFree=1
Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://geosec.webex.com/geosec/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".

You can contact me at:
oochiai@geosec.org