Document Actions

10/01/20 TC

by admin — last modified 2010-01-29 06:48

SPG Telecon Notes and SMAP discussion for Jan 20, 2010 3pm ET telecon

Attendees: Rich Ullman, Yonsook Enloe, Ananth Rao, Allan Doyle, Helen Conover, Daniel Jacob, John Scialdone, Glenn Cunningham, Emily Law, Ed Armstrong, Gao Chen, Siri Jodha Khalsa, Emily Law, Michael Burnett, Barry Weiss, Rob Toaz, Peter Leonard

Next SPG telecon: Wed Feb 17 at 3pm ET.

Next SMAP telecon is scheduled for Wed Feb 17th at 4pm ET.

Action Items:

Jan 27 – Siri Jodha Khalsa – send pictures of July /Oct SPG meetings to Glenn for Glenn to possibly pick one to put into the newsletter.
Feb 17 – Yonsook to contact Carol Meyer about date for SPG workshop in July.

Notes/Discussion:

Rob Toaz and Barry Weiss from the SMAP decadal survey mission team joined the SPG telecon
Barry gave the SMAP status – they are narrowing choices for file formats for products. Also working on deciding on metadata standard. Project manager wrote into the SMAP requirements do comply with ISO 19115.
Rich gave the info about the CLARREO team – SPG had a telecon with the CLARREO team. Chris Currey (CLARREO) is very interested in the reference architecture RFC coming soon. Thinks that will help them clarify what the team needs to do.
Rich is in the process of scheduling telecons with DESdynI and ICE-SAT2.
Glenn discussed the draft of the SPG newsletter that he sent ot the email list. Please send any other comments about the newsletter to Glenn. Glenn would like to solicit SPG members for any pictures they took at the July or Oct SPG meetings. Siri Jodha took some picture and he will send to Glenn.
Allan gave the DAP2 Mapping RFC status. James Gallagher and Kent Yang want to address reviewer comments by producing new version of document. Allan is waiting for the revised document.
ICARTT RFC status --Daniel noted that the TWG has received 12 reviews, including one from the NASA Airborne science program. Author will address comments by Feb 3rd.
CF TWG – Daniel has scheduled the first TWG telecon for Fri Jan 22nd.
Rich gave some background info about TWG process for our 2 new SMAP attendees: The SPG process solicits from stakeholders standards in RFC form. The TWG forms to tailor our understanding – what is being standardized? What review questions are needed to be asked. TWG is a subgroup of the SPG. In the CF TWG case, the CF TWG will decide how should we solicit feedback for the CF review.
ECHO RFC – Ananth said that we have received the ECHO RFC metadata model. The newly created TWG will meet at the end of this week or next week to begin the review. ECHO mapping to 19115 is expected in first quarter of this year. That will then be added to the RFC. Anyone who would like to volunteer to be on the ECHO RFC, please let Ananth know.
NetCDF4 –Helen said that we have not received this RFC yet. She will ping Ed Hartnett again.
Reference Architecture RFC – Rich said we don’t have the RFC yet. But Rich as seen an early draft of this RFC. The early draft is not in a state to be shared publicly yet. Jeanne Behnke expects to complete the RFC in mid Feb.
Any other RFCs for the future?
July SPG meeting at the ESIP Federation meeting. The ESIP Federation meeting will take place on July 20-23 in Knoxville, Tennessee. We will identify one day to hold the one day SPG workshop. Yonsook will contact Carol Meyer to ask about the overall ESIP Federation schedule. We’d like to try to schedule the SPG meeting for the Thursday of the week instead of our usual Tuesday. One idea for the theme for the SPG workshop is reference architectures. Could invite speakers to talk about OAIS and OGC reference architectures; ESDIS architecture; Ref architecture RFC; decadal survey teams and their architectures…..We will continue to develop these ideas at future SPG telecons
Siri Jodha noted that he is part of a team for a new ACCESS award – for LIDAR. He is thinking that the industry standard format for LIDAR data would be good candidate for RFC.

SMAP Telecon Discussion immediately following:

Barry gave the presentation he put together to explain their thinking/trades for comparing HDF5 vs NetCDF4. The SMAP team will decide on a file format for their products soon. Barry noted that the SMAP team has more familiarity with HDF5 and the HDF5 tools. HDF5 is also more flexible than NetCDF4. If anyone sees anything in slides that is incorrect or there is an unmentioned issue, please flag it.
HDF5 has voluminous documentation with much detailed info. NetCDF documentation does not cover all the topics in enough detail. However Barry likes CF conventions. CF conventions in HDF5 possible? Is that documented somewhere?
Rich noted that the McIDAS group in Wisconsin makes heavy use of McIDAS V which support NetCDF4. Good visualization capabilities in tool. Rich will send reference for this info to Barry.
Siri Jodha suggested that Barry document the NetCDF4 vs HDF5 comparison trades in an RFC and submit that to the SPG. Barry is willing to do that. Could take couple of months before he completes that.
Barry also noted that ISO 19115 is the future of SMAP for metadata. Siri Jodha is the editor for 19115-2. Yonsook will send Barry contact info for Liping Di, who led the work to profile 19115 & 19115-2 for the GOES-R strawman metadata model. Barry is also working with Andy Mitchell (ECHO ) on the ECHO mapping to 19115.