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: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov 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 <newair...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org> Date: Friday, April 5, 2013 9:25 PM To: Martin Desruisseaux <martin.desruisse...@geomatys.fr> Cc: "d...@sis.apache.org" <d...@sis.apache.org>, "d...@airavata.apache.org" <d...@airavata.apache.org>, Harsha Kumara <hars...@gmail.com>, Shahani Markus Weerawarana <shahan...@gmail.com>, Nipuni Perera <nipuni880...@gmail.com>, "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org> 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 < >martin.desruisse...@geomatys.fr> 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 >> >>
