Marine Metadata Interoperability
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
<MMI/> Marine Metadata Interoperability Sensor Metadata Interoperability Workshop Report October 19-20, 2006 Portland, Maine, USA Authors John Graybeal, Stephanie Watson, Anthony Isenor, Luis Bermudez, Matthew Howard, and the Workshop Team Leads: Anne Ball, Mike Botts, Steve Havens, Melanie Meaux, Greg Reed Publication Date: July 3, 2007 Executive Summary On October 19 and 20, 2006, the Marine Metadata Interoperability (MMI) Initiative held a “Sensor Metadata Interoperability” (SMI) workshop in Portland, Maine. The workshop’s goal was to establish consensus on a content standard, or some other interoperable approach, for representing sensor metadata. To this point, Executive oceanographers have used many metadata content standards and specifications to describe sensors, with little interoperability or coordination between those specifications. This workshop was designed to improve that situation. Summary The workshop engaged 52 participants from 42 organizations, with expertise in many technical and scientific areas. Its participants came from different backgrounds, but with similar sensor metadata interoperability issues. Most participants were technical, although some scientists with responsibility for sensor metadata attended. Almost all participants were senior professionals in their respective fields, reflecting the target audience and subject of the workshop. The workshop included two tracks. The first, Evaluating Sensor Metadata Content Standards, sought to evaluate 5 specifications in real-world sensor metadata situations. The second, Sensor Metadata Training, provided participants with broad technical training on sensor metadata practices and options. At the beginning of the first day, participants attended presentations and received direction that guided the workshop’s activities. The evaluation track stayed in breakout groups until the final plenary discussions, reviewing and working with their assigned metadata specification. Meanwhile, the training track met as a group, attending additional presentations, working with training materials, and finally discussing needs and recommendations for sensor interoperability. In the final session, the two groups rejoined to present their outcomes, and then discussed recommendations. The workshop produced many more (and more varied) recommendations than expected, and almost all the recommendations were widely embraced. The workshop explicitly generated many detailed recommendations and action items, and initiated definition of still more items in the final report. Participants emphasized the critical need for computable, use-oriented standards, in addition to the (currently dominant) discovery-oriented standards. In some cases organizations or individuals volunteered to lead a recommended activity, but many remained unallocated, typically due to lack of available resources. The workshop participants agreed that many different environmental science communities can benefit from the work that was outlined. As a result, the workshop recommended identifying funds from multiple sources to pursue this effort. This workshop is one step toward collaboratively ensuring the interoperability of sensor metadata. We also endorse the results of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies workshop on Enabling Sensor Interoperability, which immediately preceded and complemented our own. Future steps consist of community implementation of the action items listed herein. All workshop materials and outcomes have been posted on the MMI website at http://marinemetadata.org/workshop06. Sensor Metadata Interoperability Workshop Report i Workshop Frequently Asked Questions Table of Contents We summarize here the workshop goals and results. The following questions Executive Summary...................................................................... i highlight our goals before the workshop, while the answers summarize the Workshop Frequently Asked Questions..................................................... ii workshop reports and guide the reader to additional information. 1. Introduction . 1 Workshop Did the workshop reach consensus on a content standard or approach to use for describing 1.1 Goals and Background ................................................................. 1 sensors in ocean observing systems? 1.2 Preparation ......................................................................... 2 Frequently No, it did not; the current world of both system requirements and existing specifications proved too diverse. Some useful distinctions were made, and are 2. Presentations . 4 described in the appendix “Brief Comparison of Specifications”. 3. Brief Description of Specifications...................................................... 6 Asked Did the workshop provide a matrix of strengths and weaknesses of the various content standards? 4. Workshop Conclusions . 8 Some of this information was collected in the Team Reports appendix. However, 4.1 Workshop Guidance................................................................... 8 the processes and membership of each team were not similar enough to allow 4.1.1 Reusing and Blending . 8 Questions direct comparison, and the evaluation teams did not meet in joint session. MMI has 4.1.2 Types of Metadata ............................................................. 9 agreed to adopt this task as an ongoing project. 4.1.3 Extensions and Profiles......................................................... 13 Does the report list common good/best practices that were identified? 4.2 Workshop Recommendations . 16 Yes, many of these are listed in the Workshop Guidance section of the 4.2.1 Content Standards and Specifications.............................................. 16 Conclusions. This list is by no means comprehensive, but will be enhanced by future 4.2.2 Vocabularies ................................................................. 18 guidance providers like MMI. 4.2.3 Additional Information on Vocabularies . 19 Did the participants gain insight into sensor metadata practices and options? Did participants 4.3 Enabling Future Work . 21 leave the workshop with a reasonable understanding of the current state of development of sensor 4.3.1 Priorities and Justifications . 22 metadata practices that could be applied to ocean observing systems? 4.3.2 Possible Outcomes . 23 Yes, from survey results most participants gained insight, though better results were clearly possible. Many participants had a very good understanding of these Appendices ............................................................................. 24 practices beforehand, and the workshop provided considerable context, both A. Agenda............................................................................. 25 explicitly and implicitly. (See also the Workshop Survey Results and Workshop B. Preparation . 28 Lessons Learned appendices.) B1. Track One . 28 Did participants leave with the ability to create some form of sensor metadata? B2. Track Two . 31 Yes, to a significant degree. This was not achieved to the extent the workshop C. Materials & Tools . 33 intended, though many of the training participants were very pleased with what D. Team Reports ........................................................................ 34 they learned. D1. International Standards Organization (ISO) 19115/19139 . 34 Did the workshop identify potential problems when submitting sensor information to specific D2. Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata . 35 clearinghouses? D3. DIF/Auxiliary Description of Instruments . 36 Yes, a number of problems were identified, mainly that most clearinghouses do not D4. SensorML . 38 accept detailed or use-oriented metadata about sensors. As a result, we dropped this D5. TransducerML................................................................. 40 demonstration from the workshop, and did not discuss clearinghouse-related topics. E. Workshop Survey Results ............................................................... 42 Has the workshop provided an additional level of guidance/lessons learned to supplement Survey Analysis . 42 metadata development or clearinghouse submission processes? Survey Numerical Rankings......................................................... 43 Yes, the guidance in the Conclusions section will provide considerable assistance Survey Comments ................................................................. 46 to metadata developers, and enhancement of this guidance is likely. At least one F. Workshop Lessons Learned.............................................................. 53 clearinghouse directly received significant input on its metadata processes. G. Participant List . 56 ii Sensor Metadata Interoperability Workshop Report Sensor Metadata Interoperability Workshop Report iii I. Introduction The Marine Metadata Interoperability (MMI) Initiative is a collaborative effort, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other interested contributors, to promote the exchange, integration and use of marine data. The organization began its formal existence in October, 2004, and has received significant additional funding since then, including a 3-year grant from NSF that took effect July 1, 2006. I MMI held its first workshop in August 2005 on Advancing Domain Vocabularies, and has developed several tools and a growing web site of metadata resources. The MMI project held its second workshop in Portland, Maine on October 19-20, Introduction 2006. The Sensor Metadata Interoperability workshop focused on developing best 1.1