NASAs Earth Science Data Systems Standards Endorsement Process

1
NASAs Earth Science Data Systems Standards
Endorsement Process

• November 14, 2006
• Richard Ullman
• Ming-Hsiang Tsou
• Co-chairs

2
Motivation

• One initiative after another has stressed the
  need for interoperability standards.
• Many standards initiatives, both formal and grass
  roots have put forward specifications or
  demonstrated various ways to enable access to
  data.
• NASA, or NASA funded projects are often in the
  forefront of these activities.
• However, NASA participation in a standards
  development activity does not imply that NASA
  projects endorse the results of that activity.
• Need a way to identify the standards that work
  in the context of NASAs Earth science research
  and applications data systems under the
  operational loads that NASA typically experience.

3
Standards Role in Achieving NASAs Earth Science
Data Systems Needs.

• Future Data Systems Features (January 2004)
• Selection and management will emphasize
  flexibility and accountability over
  centralization.
• More distributed geographically, functionally and
  managerially.
• Ability to add new data system components,
  independently developed and independently managed
  without unduly perturbing existing systems
• Responsiveness to defined communities Innovation
  to serve new community needs encouraged.
• Services to broad community.
• Diversity in implementation will be encouraged -
  with coordination at the interfaces.

4
Insights from SEEDS Analysis

• Interoperability does not require homogeneous
  systems, but rather coordination at the
  interfaces.
• Management can judge success based upon program
  goals rather than dictated solutions.
• example degree of interoperability rather than
  use of particular data format.
• Communities of practice have solutions.
• Published practices that demonstrate benefit can
  grow
• successful practice in specific community
• broader community adoption
• community-recognized standards

5
The Request For Comment Process

• Modeled after example of Internet IETF RFC.
• Tailored for responsiveness to NASA.
• Proposed standards are documented as
  specifications acording to SPG guidelines and
  submitted by practitioners within the NASA
  community.
• The Standards Process Group forms a Technical
  Working Group (TWG) to coordinate evaluation.
• What does implementation of this specification
  mean in the context of NASA Earth Science Data
  Systems?
• What constitutes successful operational
  experience?
• The community is invited by means of email
  announcement to comment on the specification and
  particularly to address questions formulated by
  the TWG.
• The TWG also identifies key stakeholders that are
  likely to have particular experience with the
  technology and solicits their opinion.
• The TWG reports to the SPG and the SPG makes
  recommendations for final status of the RFC.

6
The Three Step Standards Process

• Initial Screening
• Initial review of the RFC
• Provide RFC submission support
• Form TWG set schedule

RFC
Community
Core
Proposed Standard
Community
Core
Review of Implementation
Stakeholders
Evaluate Implementations
TWG
Evaluate Implementations and Community Response
SPG
Recommendation
Draft Standard
Community
Core
Review of Operation
Stakeholders
Evaluate Implementations
TWG
Evaluate Implementations and Community Response
SPG
Standard
Recommendation
Community
Core
7
RFC criteria

• Are there components (technologies practices)
  that if documented and more widely used would
  promote
• Easier sharing or exchanging of data among
  distributed partners and users.
• Distributed systems development and sharing of
  software and technical expertise.
• Reducing the cost of developing or maintaining a
  system.
• Increasing the use of scientific data products
  and bringing more funding.
• Interoperability and enhancing innovation,
  collaboration, and computing performance.
• For identified technologies/practices, Is there a
  community of use that
• Has experience in implementation and operation .
• Has leadership necessary to promote the advantage
  of wider use.

8
Benefit of publishing through the SPG

• Benefit to NASA data systems of community
  endorsement
• NASA Earth science data management can rely on
  standards to achieve highest priority
  interoperability.
• Science investigators are assured that standards
  contribute to science success in their
  discipline.
• Benefit to community/project that proposes RFC
• Encourage consensus within the community.
• Grows use of common practices among related
  activities.
• Wider discipline community learns from successful
  practice.
• Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data by
  external discipline communities within NASA and
  outside NASA.
• Accelerate evolution of practices through
  better communication.
• From successful practice in specific community
• To broader community adoption
• To community-recognized standards

9
RFCs Status

• RFC-004 Data Access Protocol (DAP) 2.0 The SPG
  reviewed community use of DAP (a.k.a. OPeNDAP)
  and found that the protocol has multiple
  interoperable implementations and has
  demonstrated operational effectiveness. The SPG
  has recommended that NASA endorse DAP as a
  community standard.
• RFC-005 Web Map Service Implementation
  Specification (WMS) v1.3 The WMS is an Open
  Geospatial Consortium standard. This RFC makes a
  case for WMS use by NASA data systems. Comments
  received on implementation indicated that NASA
  data systems did not have sufficient experience
  with Version 1.3 implementation to make a
  recommendation for WMS 1.3 to be considered a
  NASA community standard. The RFC was therefore
  published as a Technical note
• RFC-006 WMS V1.1.1 NASA stakeholders have have
  good experience with v1.1.1 implementation of
  WMS. The RFC is now out for comment on use of
  WMS 1.1.1 in an operational environment.
• RFC-007 HDF 5.0 The underlying library and
  format of the EOS Aura standard products. This
  RFC is now out for comment on implementation
  experience.
• RFC-008 HDF5-EOS The particular profile of HDF5
  used by Aura standard products. This RFC is now
  out for comment on implementation experience.

10
In work Candidate RFCs Status

• GeoTIFF Members of the geoTIFF community have
  expressed a desire to use the NASA process for
  publication of a standard geoTIFF specification.
  Author identified but progress slow because of
  lack of funding.
• Aura DSWG data product standards The data
  systems working group for the Aura mission
  specification for mission standard products.
  Publication of this as an RFC will enhance public
  and scientific use of these products. Author
  identified, but presently stalled.
• ECHO NASAs Earth science data metadata
  clearinghouse has a series of APIs for data
  providers, client developers and service
  providers. Publication of these APIs as a
  specification is proposed as technical notes. Not
  a present priority of ECHO development.

11
Conference Topics

• NASA HQ has developed a process for evaluating
  Working Group recommendations.
• How can the SPG work most effectively with this
  process?
• Our standards process has had mixed success in
  attracting critical review of RFCs and
  recommending community-led standards.
• How can our process be improved to learn from the
  experience with the few RFCs that we have
  published?
• NASA has formed a working relationship with
  Google, Inc with a goal of providing better
  public search of NASA assets.
• How can NASA Earth Science Data systems enable
  this partnership to further the goals of
  increased interoperability of NASA Earth Science
  data systems and interuse of NASA Earth Science
  data?

12
Break-out Agenda

• Tuesday Nov 14
• 0130 PM Standards Process - HQ steering process
  presentation discussion
• with Martha Maiden, NASA
• 0230 PM RFC Status HDF, WMS (others)
• 0300 PM SPG Process Refinement
• "Old Man Brown" at Madam's Organ in Adam's Morgan
  leave conference center at 630, travel by Metro.
• Wednesday Nov 15
• 0830AM Joint Working Group Meeting w/Reuse and
  Tech Infusion
• 1030AM Areas of potential NASA standards for
  Google/NASA Collaboration
• with Chris Kemp, NASA
• 130PM Discussions Continued
• Google, RFC Future Steps, SPG Process
• No-Host dinner at Franklin's, Hyattsville

13
The Standard Process Group Standard ES-DSWG
Music Event!Old Man Brown - at Madams
OrganTuesday November 14
Directions Meet in the Conference Center Lobby
at 630. Well car pool to Metro green line
College Park Station, take Metro to Columbia
Heights, then walk to Madams Organ (about 7
blocks)
http//www.oldmanbrown.com/
2461 18th Street NW, Adams Morgan, Washington,
DC [phone] http//www.madamsorgan.com
14
Earth Science DSWG Standards Process

• Facilitate Data Systems Interoperability and
  Data Interuse.
• Benefit to NASA data systems of community
  endorsement
• NASA Earth science data management can rely on
  standards to achieve highest priority
  interoperability.
• Science investigators assured that standards
  contribute to success in their discipline.
• Benefit to community/project that proposes RFC
• Encourage consensus within the community.
• Grows use of common practices among related
  activities.
• Wider discipline community learns from successful
  practice.
• Lowers barriers to entry and use of NASA data by
  external discipline communities within NASA and
  outside NASA.
• Accelerate adoption of practices through better
  communication.
• From successful practice in specific community
• To broader community adoption
• To community-recognized standards

• The Process
• Modeled after example of Internet IETF RFC.
• Tailored for responsiveness to NASA.
• Proposed standards are documented as
  specifications acording to SPG guidelines and
  submitted by practitioners within the NASA
  community.
• The Standards Process Group forms a Technical
  Working Group (TWG) to coordinate evaluation.
• What does implementation of this specification
  mean in the context of NASA Earth Science Data
  Systems?
• What constitutes successful operational
  experience?
• The community is invited by means of email
  announcement to comment on the specification and
  particularly to address questions formulated by
  the TWG.
• The TWG also identifies key stakeholders that are
  likely to have particular experience with the
  technology and solicits their opinion.
• The TWG reports to the SPG and the SPG makes
  recommendations for final status of the RFC.

• Status of Requests for Comments
• November 14, 2006
• RFC-004OPeNDAP recommended for endorsement -
  2005
• RFC-005 WMS 1.4 NOT recommended for endorsement
  - 2006
• RFC-006 WMS1.1.1 Have received comment on
  operational experience.
• RFC-007 HDF5 Have received comment on
  operational experience.
• RFC-008 HDF5-EOS Have received comment on
  operational experience.
• Backtrack Search - Have received draft of RFC,(
  ready for review?)
• geoTIFF Interest from community, waiting for
  RFC
• Aura DSWG Interest from community, no one
  available for RFC
• ECHO APIs Some interest from project, not
  priority.
• ESMF, SWEET, netCDF In conversation with
  communities.

15
end
16
Crossing the Chasm DiagramGeoffrey Moore,
1999modified after Everett Rodgers, 1962
17
Crossing the Chasm DiagramThe NASA Chasm
Innovative Pragmatic Research/Demonstration Missi
on Reliability/Stability
18
Network Effect From Wikipedia

• The network effect is a characteristic that
  causes a good or service to have a value to a
  potential customer dependent on the number of
  customers already owning that good or using that
  service.
• One consequence of a network effect is that the
  purchase of a good by one individual indirectly
  benefits others who own the good - for example by
  purchasing a telephone a person makes other
  telephones more useful. This type of side-effect
  in a transaction is known as an externality in
  economics, and externalities arising from network
  effects are known as network externalities.

19
Responsibilities

• Community Leader
• Identify someone in their community who will
  document standard according to SPG guidelines.
• Work with the community to get an extended review
  of the proposed standard.
• SPG
• Assign RFC editor to advise on RFC document.
• Publish and publicize RFC
• Assign TWG, technical working group to organize
  community review and evaluate responses.
• Recommend action to NASA HQ.

20
Kinds of Practices Suitable for SPG

• Any data system practice that increases
  interoperability or interuse of data within a
  community or among communities.
• Standard - Documents Operational Use
• Tech Note - Builds community awareness
  sometimes a precursor to a standard
• Examples
• Describe science content (e.g. Content standard
  for a level-2 precipitation product, surface
  reflectance product content)
• Describe interface (e.g. Data Access Protocol,
  Web Map Server)
• Describe metadata (e.g. DIF, ECHO)
• Describe File Format (e.g. HDF, GeoTIFF)
• Best Practices (e.g. File naming conventions,
  fast search algorithm for polar data)

21
Successful RFCs will have

• Well documented standard specification
• At least two implementers.
• Demonstrated operational benefit.
• Strong community leadership to support and use
  standard
• Leadership in generating the RFC.
• Community willing/able to review
• Potential for impact and spillover to other
  communities

22
Standards Process - HQ steering processQuestions
for Discussion

• In providing a recommendation to the steering
  committee, what aspects or materials will be
  needed in order for the committee to make a
  determination?
• Are there additional items or criteria that apply
  to standards over other kinds of recommendations?
• How will decisions of the committee be
  disseminated through NASA?
• How will approval of standards be factored into
  selection criteria for future work (such as AOs,
  etc.)?
• Are there recommendations for what areas the
  standards process should focus?
• Areas that would benefit from lower cost
  dissemination of data?
• Areas that would benefit from lower cost systems
  interoperability?
• Areas that have developed improved data system
  interoperability or data inter-exchange or
  interuse that would be beneficial in wider NASA
  use?

23
Standards Process Revision/Clarification

• 3 Types of Candidate Standards
• NASA community developed standard used within at
  least one self defined community where the
  proposed standard has not been approved or
  adopted by an external standards organization AND
  where new implementations are expected to be
  developed from scratch, using the proposed
  standard RFC as the implementation specification.
• A NASA community developed standard used within
  at least one self defined community where the
  proposed standard has not been approved or
  adopted by an external standards organization AND
  where new implementations are not expected to be
  developed from scratch but use existing software
  libraries or code. 
• A standard already approved by an external
  standards organization but is being proposed for
  use for the NASA Earth science community

24
Standards Process Revision/Clarification

• 3 types of reviews that are potentially needed to
  evaluate a proposed standard
• A detailed technical specification review that
  determines the quality, accuracy, and clarity of
  the proposed specification.  The detailed
  technical review ensures that implementers can
  use the proposed standard as an implementation
  specification for any future implementations with
  confidence.
• A usefulness user review that determines if the
  proposed standard is useful or helpful or
  necessary to the user to carry out his work. 
• An operational review that determines if the
  proposed standard works in an operational setting
  in a NASA environment with NASA data.

25
Which Reviews?

• A proposed standard where implementations are
  expected from scratch using the proposed standard
  needs to have all 3 types of reviews.
• A proposed standard where implementations are
  expected using existing software libraries or
  code needs to have a usefulness user review and
  an operational review.  The technical spec review
  is optional.
• A proposed standard where the standard is already
  approved by an external standards organization
  needs to have a usefulness review and an
  operational review.  A technical spec review will
  not be done.?

26
Reliance on Evidence of Implementation?

• The Evidence of Implementation document will
  define the NASA community where the proposed
  standard is used.  For that reason, the Evidence
  of Implementation document should be as
  comprehensive as possible, containing an
  exhaustive list of implementations as known.  
  The contacts listed in this document will be used
  as the starting point by the SPG to solicit
  reviews of the proposed standard.   Having an
  incomplete list of implementations or a very
  short list of implementations will imply that the
  community is very small or the proposed standard
  is not widely used.
• ?To evaluate each proposed standard, the SPG will
  identify the community.  The initial set of
  stakeholders in the community is the contacts
  list from the Evidence of Implementation
  document.  The SPG can also identify other
  stakeholders to add to the list of community by
  any other means.  The SPG will contact the
  community for each review phase.  The SPG will
  also send a broad request for review through its
  public announcement list, soliciting reviews from
  the general NASA Earth science community and its
  partners. 

27
Recommended and  Required vs Community and Core

• A proposed candidate standard can be
  Recommended or Required.   This is a change
  from Community or Core.  If a standard is
  Recommended, then NASA Earth science data
  systems are strongly encouraged to implement or
  use the standard but compliance is not
  mandatory.  If a standard is Required, then all
  NASA Earth science data systems must implement or
  use the standard if applicable.

28
Role of standards activities vs SPG process

• FGDC Standards Review vs SPG Review
• The NASA review for draft FGDC standards should
  be conducted by the appropriate NASA point of
  contacts and their established processes.  If a
  draft FGDC standard is input into the SPG
  process, then it can be input as a Technical Note
  RFC.  The SPG will send out an announcement to
  the spg-announce email list to publicize the
  Technical Note.  However, SPG will not conduct
  formal NASA reviews of the draft FGDC standards. 
  HQ has designated others with that
  responsibility.

29
NASA ES-DSWG Google Discussion
30
General Google interface discussion points

• What is the big picture view of Googles
  Geographic/Imagery vision?
• Google Earth, Google Earth Enterprise Server,
  Google Maps, KML, "regionator?
• What is Googles vision of how they want to
  present NASA data
• In search results
• In their client applications.
• Through tools to post/publish information from
  NASA servers.
• How do/should Google's APIs and formats fit into
  NASA ES Data Systems?