04/04/21 TC

Attendees:

Rich Ullman, Ming-Hsiang Tsou, Gi-Kong Kim, Sam Bacharach, Glenn Cunningham, John Evans, Ananth Rao, Jingli Yang, Helen Conover, Siri Jodha S. Khalsa, Larry Sugarbaker

Decisions:

Recommend ESE management accept RFC-001 and 002

Actions:

• Glenn and Siri Jodha – accept changes and post final versions of RFC-001 and RFC-002 to web site

• Sam – update RFC-003 to reflect final versions of 001 and 002.
• Rich – draft recommendation for ESE management to accept RFC-001 and 002.
• Ananth – address workflow and site organization issues for SPG portal.

Agenda Items:

.

TWG status:

• RFC-001 (Glenn) – completed and on web. Incorporated a few comments from final review period. SPG recommends ESE management accept.
• RFC-002 (SJSK) – generally positive feedback. Adding final changes now. SPG recommends ESE management accept.
• RFC-003 (Sam) – now that 1 and 2 are complete, will update document RFC-003 accordingly. Expect new draft for review within days.

RFC next steps:

• Keep original as submitted in RFC folder.
• Keep current version in TWG folder.
• Post final version - TWG lead to accept all changes and post to web site.
• Rich will write recommendation email, forward to Kathy Fontaine, who will submit to Martha.

Web site status:

• New web site active. Plone upgraded. Ananth working on workflow, site organization issues.

Report from Standards response evaluation team:

• Standards evaluation criteria developed by the standards response evaluation team.
  1. strong community leadership to support/use proposed standard
  2. strong and defined community willing to use standard
  3. potential for impact
  4. potential for approval
  5. simple standard is better
  6. potential for spillover to other communities

Candidate starting standards were identified:

• OPeNDAP strong candidate
  • Mentioned by several respondents.
  • Widely used and not discipline-specific (need to define target application area)
  • OPeNDAP 2 has operational use (4 in work currently)
  • OPeNDAP team willing to support RFC process
• FGDC vegetation classification standard (NVCS)
  • Specifies valid values to use for vegetation classification variables
  • Already an approved FGDC standard
  • Strong user community, lots of operational use, discipline independent
  • But may be difficult to derive classification from satellite data (i.e., not developed from this perspective)
• Precipitation content standard
  • List of variables or parameters that should be included in precipitation products (L2 swath and L3 grid)
  • Not a codified standard, rather community practice

Discussion

• Discussion of OPENDAP. WCS as similar technology.
• Issue – how to determine proper review community (tech community vs. science community; specific science disciplines). Recommend talking to FGDC about lessons learned
• Do we have to choose only one of competing standards? Maybe narrowing down large field of tools to 2-3 is good enough. Discover what any particular “community” is coalescing around – directed evolution.
• Really need to determine what SPG recommendation means – recommended or required standard; only one standard in an area, or list of things people can choose from. Choose standard from the list or explain why not? Major topic of discussion for telecon next month.
• Call for volunteers to facilitate first RFCs.

Next DSWG face-to-face:

• Maybe can invite someone from FGDC Secretariat to talk to SPG.
• Next meeting planned for mid-September in DC area.

ESDSWG Planning meeting:

• First Tuesday of each month. Please bring any issues or questions for this group to Rich and/or Ming.

Next telecon May 18, 2pm ET – note day change

• Major discussion topic: What does it mean to be an SPG Standard? Recommended or required? Only one standard in an area, or list of options people can choose from? Choose standard from the list or explain why not?

• Recommendation on RFC-003.