[Historical Document]

OceanESIP

This is the UCB OceanESIP site. If you wish to find our project's home-page, hosted by JPL, click here.

Offerings at this site:


The UCB partnership with JPL

The University of California at Berkeley is participating in the OceanESIP research project in conjunction with the Jet Propusion Laboratory in Pasedena, California. The UCB contribution is in the area of data-management. Berkeley has a long tradition of leading innovation in the fields of data management. With regard to Earth Science and in particular scientific data processing and data management based on observations from space, Professor Michael Stonebraker and Turing Award winner Jim Gray published the seminal "An Alternative Architecture for EOS-DIS" white-paper as an out-growth of the Sequoia 2000 Project. This document outlines a new, database-centric vision for Earth Science, and the BigSur Project was funded to create a prototype. The prototype was successful and a commercial version was implemented by Berkeley Earth Science Tools corporation, and placed in production at the LaRC (Langley Research Center, Hampton VA)  in time for the first Earth Observing System satellite launch in November of 1997. Continuing the work, we are now focused on furthering the technology.

Using this technology, we shall be offering our scientific results -- data-sets, not just white-papers -- to the Earth Science community. Our work here is just beginning, and it is our goal to present to you here sufficient means for others to not just browse our collections and ask for copies of it, but to fully participate and benefit from all our work, including the functional processes by which we turn raw data into information. We do this by presenting a sufficiently rich set of meta-data -- data about the data -- in a straight-forward and comprehensible way. We shall offer a publication database, a Java API and perhaps some applications which know how to browse and visualize our data.



About the Earth Science Information Partner Federation



About the Federation Inter-Operability Group

The Federation Inter-Operability Group (FIG) was organized to help find the Federation solution(s) to inter-operability issues. This includes the evaluation of the use of existing systems as well as to outline the problems envisiaged. We have been holding teleconferences - if you're trying to join in, the tele-cons are run by NTC and they can be reached at  256-544-5300 if you get disconnected...

(Note: Please send me a note to help "flesh out" the following entries! Thanks.)

 Kenn Gardels, Chairman,

Jim Gallagher initiated a checklist of evaluation criteria which the group helped evolve. There are two major delineations of desired features and attributes for an Inter-Operability system: Access Methods and Cataloging.

Catalog Attributes, HTML, or MS Word format.
Access Method Attributes, HTML, or MS Word format.
 


ESIP Inter-Operability Desired Features & Attributes

The following are the ESIP Federation Inter-Operability catalog function descriptions.

Catalog Features and Attributes

  1. Work with multiple formats, including standards-based and proprietary image, vector, and database files

  2.  
  3. Work with existing data without prior conversion

  4.  
  5. Provide concurrent access to multiple map/image servers

  6.  
  7. Minimize changes to existing data

  8.  
  9. Minimize changes to current processing techniques

  10.  
  11. Minimize additional cost to maintain data and system

  12.  
  13. Describe data provider tasks cogently and completely

  14.  
  15. Interface with user-developed programs for reading the data

  16.  
  17. Interface with COTS software

  18.  
  19. Enable data browsing in conjunction with catalog

  20.  
  21. Provide an interface and viewing capability for analytical applications (or enable same)

  22.  
  23. Support data integration or fusion, including:
  1. Support coordinate and attribute query

Miscellaneous Access Specifications

  1. Protocol

  2.  
  3. Source availability

  4.  
  5. Platforms supported

  6.  
  7. License costs

  8.  
  9. Current usage

  10.  
  11. Standards used

  12.  
  13. Language

  14.  
  15. DCE

  16.  
  17. Data model(s)

  18.  
  19. Data access method (file access, dbms, API, etc)

  20.  
  21. Data types

Catalog Features and Attributes

  1. Provide for local and network-based discovery (browsing) of on-line or off-line geospatial information resources in a distributed heterogeneous computing environment.

  2.  
  3. Provide operations for creating and maintaining catalogs and catalog entries.

  4.  
  5. Provide operations for discovering the content and structure of geospatial resources.

  6.  
  7. Allow use of metadata entities, elements, and sections:
  1. Provide for query (or selection) operations supporting discovery and access:
  1. Provide access operations for retrieval of complete or partial forms of geodata resources, including:
  1. Provide operations for creating and maintaining collections of geospatial datasets, including a metadata set and metadata entities associated with each stored dataset.

  2.  
  3. Provide operations for recording and checking the accessibility and retrieval status of geospatial datasets.

  4.  
  5. Allow the use of multibyte character sets for all interfaces (ISO/IEC 10646-1, Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS))

  6.  
  7. Facilitate ordering of data on or offline

  8.  
  9. Minimize re-creation of existing catalogs/metadata stores and mangement tools

  10.  
  11. Utilize available COTS/GOTS solutions where possible

  12.  
  13. Enable concurrent interrogation of multiple, distributed catalogs using a single query

  14.  
  15. Support aggregation and ranking of results

  16.  
  17. Provide searching by data type and specificity
Miscellaneous Catalog Specifications  
  1. Protocol

  2.  
  3. Source availability

  4.  
  5. Platforms supported

  6.  
  7. License costs

  8.  
  9. Current useage

  10.  
  11. Standards used

  12.  
  13. Language

  14.  
  15. DCE

  16.  
  17. Catalogfile format
 
 
Evaluation
 
  1. Efficiency and performance

  2.  
  3. Cost of implementation

  4.  
  5. Timeliness of implementation

  6.  
  7. Adequacy of documentation

  8.  
  9. Integration into existing systems

  10.  
  11. Accessibility to users:
  1. Security



Systems Evaluated
  • BigSur
  • CERES
  • CIP
  • DIAL
  • DODS
  • Ecologic
  • EMS V0
  • Geo
  • IDEA
  • MEL
  • NOAAServer
  • QUAIL OGDI
  • SIESIP
  •  
    System Evaluations
     
     

    Section Coordinator: Richard Troy