06/09/20 TC

Attendees: Rich Ullman, Yonsook Enloe, Ananth Rao, Glenn Cunningham, Ed Armstrong, Allan Doyle, Siri Jodha Khalsa, Chris Helm, Gi-Kong Kim, John Scialdone, Larry Sugarbaker, Ming-Hsiang Tsou, Helen Conover, Jingli Yang

Next SPG ALL telecon : Wed Oct 18 at 3pm ET

Next SPG face to face meeting: Nov 14-16, 2006 in College Park, Maryland

New and Old Action Items:

• Oct 18 - Ming will produce writeup of Google Earth SPG session discussion topics. Siri Jodha will help.
• Oct 18 – Rich will produce writeup of HQ SPG session discussion topics.na
• Oct 18 – Rich will contact Betsy Middleton to ask about her plans for getting NASA reviews for the Vegetation Classification standard for the FGDC review process
• Oct 18 – Chris Helm will contact Marin (sp?) about status of GeoTIFF RFC

Notes/Discussion:

• Process revision writeup – yonsook sent a writeup discussing the clarifications/revisions that need to be made to the SPG standards process. This is in preparation for our process discussions at the Nov meeting. We need to address different kinds of reviews based on the different kinds of standards. Are we asking the wrong questions to users for reviews? What is the role of the SPG in fleshing out the evidence of implementation document? Should we expand the SPG role on that?
• Glenn Cunningham said that the RFC proposer should give as much input as possible in the evidence of implementation document. Then the SPG should try to supplement that document as much as possible.
• Rich said that in the case of the HDF usage, we should do a more exhaustive search through the missions and projects and survey who is using HDF. The SPG role there needs to be more proactive since future mission use of HDF is very important. But future users will not be sending reviews.
• There is no funding to pay for reviews. TWG role is not just public reviews. Can do internal evaluations also. Can say such and such mission is using this.
• Gi-Kong said that we should document the justification. We ultimately need to be vetted and guided by users. Concurrence needs come from users.
• Nov 14-16 ESDSWG meeting. The meeting dates are firm. We will have Chris Kemp (Google Earth). Ted Habermann will be speaker in the ESDSWG session. Martha and Frank are coming to the meeting. No confirmation from any other HQ staff.
• Larry S not coming to the Nov meeting.
• Allan reported on the WMS TWG. The WMS TWG closed down for now. Even after TWG extended the operational review by 3 months, there are not enough operational reviews. Allan talked with Nadine Alameh (GIO) office. GIO has been gtrying hard to get DAACS to use the WMS but can’t get useful uptake on it. Allan recommends that we publish the WMS RFC as a Tech Note along with a note saying that this spec is worthy of implementation and that this is an emerging standard
• WMS is not associated with any one community. More diffuse use.
• SPG could not come to agreement on the WMS future steps. No agreement on whether to issue the WMS as a Tech Note. Discuss WMS future steps at the Nov meeting.
• HDF5 update – TWG has been discussing how to get more user reviews. Elena Pourmal has sent us a list of users. TWG produced a user survey for the HDF5 “usefulness” to be given out at the HDF workshop.
• Backtrack Tech Note status – Ross Swick will put together the RFC by the Nov meeting
• Jingli reported that Cheryl Craig will work on the AURA Profile in Oct.
• Vegetation Classification future RFC – Larry asked if the SPG wants to be involved in the FGDC review process. Is the standard useful for remotely sensed data? Larry asked if SPG wants to send in an “official” review to the FGDC? But – NASA has a rep on the FGDC. Betsy Middleton is the NASA rep and she may have plans for the NASA review. Who is coordinating the NASA review of this standard? Her job is to get the reviews. Rich will contact her and ask her about this.
• Chris Helm reported on the GeoTIFF. He has not heard anything on this for a while. Frank W has stopped working on this. Chris will contact Marin (new author) and ask her about it.