-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It is definitely an interesting addition for Airavata.
Marlon On 4/6/13 1:00 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote: > Hi Amila, > > I think that WPS can potentially be something that Airavata and/or > OODT help to layer on top of SIS as a core library. > > Thanks! > > Cheers, Chris > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion > Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: > 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: > http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University > of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: AMILA RANATUNGA > <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> Date: Friday, April 5, 2013 9:25 PM To: > Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> Cc: > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Harsha Kumara > <[email protected]>, Shahani Markus Weerawarana > <[email protected]>, Nipuni Perera <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Research > project on integrating geoservices with Apache Airavata > >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for the long reply. As you suggest "GeoTk" is the core >> part which suits to scientists. And "Constellation-SDI" is >> intended to provide web-services using maximum use of those >> tools. Constellation-SDI consisted of WPS, WMS, WFS as server >> modules. So will that integration make Apache SIS be considered >> as those services enabled? >> >> And why you said " Having SIS to implement WMS, WMTS, WCS and WFS >> is a must"? What about WPS. Will that make SIS out of the scope. >> Because we feel that since Airavata using Science gateway >> concept, really essential to implement WPS too. >> >> Thank You ! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Martin Desruisseaux < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Amila >>> >>> Le 05/04/13 12:57, AMILA RANATUNGA a écrit : >>> >>> the slide 21 describes remaining code to move as WMS, WCS, >>> WCTS, WPS and >>>> more. Is that mean Apache SIS does not support them? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. SIS is still in an early stage and does not support WMS, >>> WCS and similar services yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> And GeoTk code was moved to SIS and claims that reference >>> implementation >>>> of GEOAPI. >>>> >>> >>> Geotk code is in process of being moved to SIS. But only >>> metadata port is close to completion. The next module to port >>> will be referencing (hopefully completed before FOSS4G in >>> September). >>> >>> >>> geotoolkit.org (...snip...) Mapfaces (...snip...) >>> constellation-sdi >>>> (...snip...) puzzle-gis (...snip...) >>>> >>>> >>>> Will integrating those into sis make one step ahead to "SIS >>>> well-suited to some communities (*scientists, but also >>>> non-scientists* wanting to explore >>>> >>>> data in more dimensions than the usual x,y)."? >>>> >>> >>> Maybe I should said that those projects will not be >>> automatically added to SIS. They will be offered, but by the >>> time we reach them, the technologies may have evolved to a >>> point where peoples may want to explore other approaches. For >>> example MapFaces is built on top of JSF. But maybe some peoples >>> will want to explore the Play framework instead. An other >>> example is Swing-based technologies, which are going to be >>> phased out in favour of JavaFX. However we may still use the >>> existing code as a starting point and try to port them to the >>> new technologies. We will revisit this issue when we will be >>> there. >>> >>> The core part aiming to make SIS "well suited to scientists" is >>> Geotk. First by its focus on ISO 19115 metadata for describing >>> the data. Those metadata include a package for describing data >>> quality, an aspect usually neglected by mass-market projects >>> but important for scientists. The GeoTk (future SIS) >>> referencing module takes its information directly from the EPSG >>> database, which provides us information about transformation >>> accuracy and CRS (Coordinate Reference System) area of >>> validity. Many popular projects use simplified version of EPSG >>> database without those information, since not anyone see them >>> as useful. GeoTk paid high attention to correctness through our >>> current effort of expanding 'geoapi-conformance' test suite >>> with the GIGS tests (provided by the EPSG authors). GeoTk also >>> have support for n-dimensional CRS. Those CRS may be more than >>> (x,y,z,t), for example meteorologists use 2 time axes and >>> oceanographers often use pressure instead of z. On the >>> coverages (rasters) side, GeoTk provides a way to describe the >>> meaning of pixel values (by contrast with some projects >>> handling rasters basically as RGB images), which allow for >>> example to compute "gradient of sea surface temperature" >>> without confusing a temperature value with a pixel covered by a >>> cloud (without such knowledge, calculations like "gradient" >>> produce strong artefacts). Large dataset can be organized in a >>> database schema designed for making easier the statistical >>> analysis over time series. >>> >>> Constellation-SDI simply uses the "building blocks" provided >>> by SIS/GeoTk for providing web services. Our approach for >>> aiming such web services as "well suited to scientists" is to >>> make sure that we use properly the tools provided by SIS. >>> Similar reasoning apply to Puzzle-GIS. Providing those web >>> services and desktop application directly in SIS would allow >>> SIS to run "out of the box", but community may decide that this >>> is not a goal. >>> >>> >>> >>> We also referred the white paper[2].There are OGC compliance >>> products and >>>> OGC implementing products[3]. What is the main difference? >>>> For an example zoo project is considered as OGC implementing. >>>> But the site says " It provides an OGC WPS compliant >>>> developer-friendly framework to create and chain WPS Web >>>> services". >>>> >>> >>> I suspect that "OGC compliant products" and "OGC implementing >>> products" can be understood as synonymous. However Frédéric >>> Houbie would known better. >>> >>> >>> >>> As Jun mentioned Osgeo live dvd has many products [4]. If they >>> are >>>> compliance with OGC. implementing OGC standards with Airavata >>>> will make such products inter-operable with Airavta. But >>>> those have implemented specific OGC standards (As Martin said >>>> " I think that OGC standards are so large that no single >>>> software in the world implement all of them"). So for such a >>>> project what will be the major consideration should be. Or >>>> how far an integration SIS with Airavata will solve this >>>> problem? >>>> >>> >>> The Web Map Services (WMS) is probably the most widely >>> implemented OGC standard. Having SIS to implement WMS, WMTS, >>> WCS and WFS is a must. Those 4 standards will probably allow >>> inter-operability with the vast majority of OGC-compliant >>> products. >>> >>> Next, there is other standards not as-widely known but >>> nevertheless of interest for us. For example Web Processing >>> Services (WPS) for launching calculations on distant machines. >>> SensorML for expressing sensor data (e.g. monitoring >>> environmental parameters). There is an ungoing "uncertainties" >>> working group at OGC which may be seen as a specialized work >>> for geoscientists. There is also other groups like "hydrology", >>> "aviation" and "law enforcement" for policemen. "Law >>> enforcement" is an example of OGC work which will probably not >>> by my personal priority. This illustrates the idea that a >>> single project may not implement every OGC standards. >>> >>> Next, there is what OGC calls "best practice" for specific >>> domains. For example the OGC Met-Ocean working group has >>> emitted recommendations about the way to use WMS with >>> meteorological and oceanographical time series. This is because >>> meteorologist have specialized needs for example in the way to >>> handle time, not considered of common interest enough for being >>> part of the base WMS standard. Those recommendations are a kind >>> of gray area, not official standards but nevertheless something >>> we should comply to if we want to increase the chances to be >>> inter-operable with Meteo-France or the UK MetOffice. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRYFETAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5nm0H/1wBZF/4CoJpEAIbcThzm0uv AsQayNIBW01aS5T+OdkbPoiJotBShLQl0xmpBWrzqOrqggn3jYNtyoGZLVTZ2Ukt uKoJ6hmlnf7jwhULGyoKDq6emMM3EV4IVvvffvXtkFtwLw3CrEXh1lbafv4vgust tA913NPXbUzBe/Sh35eA2WMDGmVqofmYxbxQMkE/EGAKVKsYd8GRd6bNTRkup/bp Ihsi/Pbolsbcqu12MFhHVxzr53YQhlhYUOFcaIGvTLxxHlrQ9BLERQX4oapZisR+ GCWh+xKbcUhiYZkbGFMn1M46a+97heMe9sgUq3qNN/0fxT+/1O1EQYfGOGveFMw= =ImQN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
