Version 4 (modified by pmiller, 15 years ago) (diff)


Peter's notes on NDG Meetings at POL 17-18 Jan. 2007

Project board


  • Progress: sluggish e.g. security, metadata production. Bryan says we should just go with the security development version if that works, even if this is a 'moving target'. Staffing problem with people getting dragged into other projects rather than NDG deliverables. Bryan says we should be driving the development now with science questions, which can now be asked at this stage, e.g. I want to compare these two datasets. Sue should be nastier about missed deadlines.
  • Staffing: Fabio may leave before end of NDG. Bryan says we should get no-cost extension, extend Andrew's work on CSML, ... Could be synchronisation issues between delayed components and DP effort.
  • DX: Steven Pascoe is re-engineering DX as a lightweight interface for DEWS, using mapplotter not CDAT. Ag has DX working for two feature types (overlay trajectory on plot), but must use Dom's CSML interface to hide the issues like a new CSML feature type for PML data files.

What is important to PML? We are doing OK with the metadata population (MOLES, DIF, CSML) - Sue says a week ago we jumped to 1,400 DIFs! (Bryan says granularity issues.) We need access to Browse interface to play with. Security is not as important as logging. We want to be able to extract/visualise our satellite data via CSML, DX, GeoSPLAT. If delivery via GeoSPLAT is problematic, what about OGC interfaces to WxS?

Lots of discussion (in Bryan's mindmap) on the technical questions that need resolving tomorrow, particularly regarding DX, CSML, ...

We will host services: Browse interface GUI, WCS- or DX-based backend, WCS- or DC-based frontend GUI (ie WMS Client or GeoSPLAT), ...

  • Metadata: Discussion on Roy's granularity issues, multiple related data entities for All Cruises->Individual cruises->CTD's, etc. Only the 'All Cruises' aggregated MOLES record will be discoverable as a DIF. Argh - Bryan hasn't implemented related entities in Browse (because he hasn't got a Stub-B schema...) so you can't actually get to the individual cruise yet! Suggested adding 'Discoverable' boolean parameter to each MOLES record. I repeated my view that deciding how to aggregate all the DP datasets is unlikely to be a successful approach, both in terms of getting a quality selection of DIFs, and in users being impressed with a Discovery search resulting in 'All cruises', 'All SeaWiFS data globally', etc. I believe all the MOLES records should have DIFs, and Discovery should do a better job like Google in indexing and ordering the results. E.g. if user searches 'chlor' then the aggregated datasets would be a sensible result, but if user searches 'chlor' + 1998 + North Sea then they should see a few matching cruises and a few closely matching satellite datasets (SeaWiFS North Sea 1998, SeaWiFS global 1998). Bryan thinks that this would be nice but won't be done in NDG2. I maintain there should be a relatively easy way to add this to Discovery, to avoid DP's having to mess with their datasets after they've gone to the trouble of releasing them. E.g. Are the DIF related record fields being used? Don't think so. Peter must write report if he wants this to happen in NDG2, and it must be really easy.