[Fwd: [Aust-NZ] Finding a way forward - GeoNetwork as platform to
support ANZLIC Profile of ISO 19115/19139]
Bruce Bannerman
bruce at bannerman.id.au
Wed May 21 07:14:38 EDT 2008
Rob,
Your response highlights the pressing need for a good extensible
Metadata Catalogue.
(warning: ramblings follow...)
This is further highlighted by OSGeo's OWS-5 screen casts that Raj Sing
posted about today on the OSGeo Discuss
list. http://www.opengeospatial.org/pub/www/ows5/demo.html
The demos provide an exciting glimpse of what may be possible in the
future using OGC web services. However we have a lot of work to do
before we get there.
Again, OWS-5 has also highlighted the need for a good catalogue /
registry as well as the potential of the information architecture that
you discussed.
This stresses the importance of GeoNetwork to the ASDI, and also
highlights that the ANZLIC Profile work is just the beginning. We are
going to need a suite of 'profiles' or definitive registry lists going
into the future (again a subject that you have been discussing for a
number of years). I suspect that we'll also need strong support for
ebRIM as well.
With regards to Information Architecture:
From memory, you touched on Information Architecture and the need for
consistent ontologies describing data during your Keynote Address at the
recent WALIS Forum.
When you consider the big picture issues that we are currently facing
e.g. Climate Change, Water Management, Security etc; it is becoming
apparent that we need to have consistent schemas / ontologies to
describe our data both nation-wide and world-wide in order to conduct
effective spatial analysis.
As anyone who has tried to integrate, a contiguous spatial dataset
covering a large regional, or even continental area with spatial data
coming from a number of data providers will attest, it is like opening
Pandora's box and not an exercise to be undertaken lightly.
We all call the same spatial entity type by a different name, record
different aspatial attributes, or possibly the same attributes but with
different and inconsistent values and data types, rendering successful
analysis a joke.
I understand that this issue has been around for years and that there
have been a number of attempts at consistency, e.g.:
- The ICMS Harmonised Data Model
( http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/harmonised_data_model/links.html )
- Ordnance Survey's Master Map
- ESRI's Geodatabase Data Models
Probably the most advanced that I'm aware of is the GeoSciML work for
describing Geoscientific data
( https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeoSciML ).
GeoSciML has proven to be effective during a series of test beds in
allowing someone to integrate relatively consistent geology served from
a number of country's Geological Surveys. This data was served via a
series of WFS servers from around the world.
It has taken the geoscience community four to five years to get where
they are to date. We have a lot of catching up to do.
As I recall that you stated in your keynote, the model that the
geoscience community have developed to help put together this ontology
could well be adopted by other communities of practice to develop
ontologies describing their own data.
This is not a light undertaking.
Is it something that could be fostered by OSGeo? Possibly. It could
certainly thrive within an Open Source Model.
It would also be a huge undertaking!
Should this be something that OSGeo undertakes? That is something for
the community to decide.
Bruce Bannerman
> As a long term participant in OGC, I think it is capable of
> providing A computational view of a reference architecture.
>
> We may want to support parallel views - for example a registry can
> easily support CSW. ebXML, Z39.50, SPARL, OAI etc interfaces from
> the same content.
>
> This "profiling pattern" is possibly within the OGC purview, but its
> not handled well at the moment IMHO because its something that
> affects deployers, not technology developers: the need to maintain a
> consistent _information architecture_. OGC is a technology vendor
> association primarily.
>
> GSDI could own a SDI reference architecture - but doesnt seem geared
> up for it.
>
> OSGEO should at least consider the commonality between its projects,
> out of business sense. If databases and services and clients and
> registries dont handle common metadata, the pieces dont fit together
> well. Every time I get asked to advise someone on building tools I
> have to warn them they have a huge job gluing the pieces together
> into a coherent whole, and there will huge amounts of redundant
> information scattered across the configurations of each component
> that will make it all expensive to build, test and maintain.
>
> Proprietary systems do tend to be better at this, since inter-
> component interoperation is often the key to marketing success.
> Peopele want an application - and they buy all the components with
> the expectation the application will work. IMHO OSGEO could
> significantly improve its offerings by having a common information
> architecture (without necessarily mandating all projects use it).
>
> 2c, but with inflation $64million :-)
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:55 AM, <Bruce.Bannerman at dpi.vic.gov.au>
wrote:
>
> IMO:
>
>
> Thanks for the comments Rob,
>
> (Can all people please ensure that the OSGeo-AustNZ list is included
> in replies, I'd like to keep the list as the archive record for this
thread?)
>
>
> Agreed, a branch is not ideal for the medium to long term.
>
> Ideally from these discussions we'll get the momentum to establish
> the mechanism whereby metadata profiles can be configured as
> 'plugins' to the stable GeoNetwork version that is current at that
> point in time.
>
>
> Until this occurs, we have to find a better way of collaborating to
> ensuring a consistent, quality approach. What we are doing now is
> not working and resulting in duplicated effort. Therefore, I'd like
> to see all proposals explored and a preferred way forward agreed on.
>
>
>
> wrt 'Reference Architecture', I can't speak for others, however:
>
> - I don't think that this is a space that OSGeo would want to get
into.
>
> - I wouldn't want to be prescriptive on what the projects can and
> can't do. We are talking about projects that thrive on innovation.
>
> - I think that this is a role that is more appropriately handled by
> the OGC, in this instance with the CSW standard. As I understand it,
> GeoNetwork already supports CSW (excluding support for ebRIM
functionality).
>
>
>
> Jeroen may wish to comment further on the GeoNetwork communities
> thoughts and intentions here.
>
>
>
>
> Bruce Bannerman
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rob Atkinson" <robatkinson101 at gmail.com>
> 21/05/2008 09:14 AM
>
> To
>
> Bruce.Bannerman at dpi.vic.gov.au
>
> cc
>
> ozmeta-l at erin.gov.au, asdi-l at lists.anzlic.org.au, info at osdm.gov.au
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Fw: [Aust-NZ] Finding a way forward - GeoNetwork as platform to
> support ANZLIC Profile of ISO 19115/19139
>
>
>
>
>
> We should not be looking at a branch - there is nothing wierd about
> the ANZLIC profile.
>
> Geonetwork needs to be capable of being configured with a profile of
> a baseline standard it supports (ISO 19115 in this case) - this is
> _THE_ basic metadata implementation pattern. Putting the key piece
> of core configuration capability required onto a branch is rather
> non-sensical.
>
>
> in fact, all tiers of an OS SDI reference implementatiuon (tools and
> architecture) need to follow the pattern - this is the goal of the
> SISS project.
>
> FYI. I'm currently drawing up some architecture ideas for this, on
> behalf of the SISS project. This is a somewhat slow process as I
> have a day a week assigned to this and i'm doing a little geoserver
> effort support at the same time.
>
> The broader challenge of how we effectively share architectural
> patterns is also a concern - we design by starting from scratch, or
> "clone and modify" from existing designs, and wonder why we have
> difficulty joining the bits back together once built. Is there a
> role for a "reference architecture" for OSGEO?
>
>
> Regards
> Rob Atkinson
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:34 PM, <Bruce.Bannerman at dpi.vic.gov.au>
wrote:
>
>
> IMO:
>
>
> This is a resend for people who are not following the thread on the
> OSGeo-AustNZ list.
>
>
>
> Bruce Bannerman
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Bruce Bannerman/DPI/VICGOV1 on 20/05/08 08:21 PM
-----
>
> Bruce Bannerman <bruce at bannerman.id.au>
> Sent by: aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> 20/05/08 08:19 PM
>
> To
>
> aust-nz at lists.osgeo.org, anzlicmet-l at listserv.its.utas.edu.au
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [Aust-NZ] Finding a way forward - GeoNetwork as platform to
> support ANZLIC Profile of ISO 19115/19139
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you to all who have responded so far.
>
> We're starting to get a snapshot of open source spatial work that is
> going on around Australia and New Zealand. It is certainly starting to
> take off.
>
>
> Please keep the comments coming, so that we as a community get a
better
> understanding of the issues involved.
>
>
> I would like to reiterate that this email thread is not intended as a
> criticism of any group or individual.
>
>
> While I had originally wondered what we, as a community, could do to
> support Simon with the GeoNetwork ANZLIC Profile work, I can see that
it
> is rapidly turning into:
>
>
> How can we support Simon, Byron, Cameron, Robert and a number of other
> organisations in their GeoNetwork ANZLIC Profile work?
>
>
>
> We have the beginnings of an open source community. Where to from
here?
>
>
> What we eventually put in place could have potential for other
> Australian and New Zealand specific open source spatial work in the
> future.
>
>
> I'd also like to hear some thoughts from some of our more experienced
> open source developers.
>
>
> To kick things off:
>
> I've had an off line email from Jeroen Ticheler from the GeoNetwork
> community. Jeroen is keen to help us where he can.
>
> He has suggested that if it is required, it may be possible establish
a
> branch with ANZLIC support on the Geonetwork SubVersion.
>
>
>
> Please keep the comments coming. This is very informative.
>
>
>
>
> Bruce Bannerman
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aust-NZ mailing list
> Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz
> Notice:
> This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> personal, confidential,
> legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be
> reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written
> consent of the copyright owner.
> It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove
viruses.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.
> You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the
> information contained in this email.
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/aust-nz/attachments/20080521/7b95a85d/attachment.bin
More information about the Aust-NZ
mailing list