04/11/17 TC

SPG Telecon Notes for November 17, 2004 2pm ET telecon

Attendees:

Rich Ullman, Yonsook Enloe, Jingli Yang, Ming-Hsiang Tsou, Helen Conover, Siri Jodha S. Khalsa, Glenn Cunningham, Gi Kong Kim, Allan Doyle, Ananth Rao

Next SPG ALL telecon : Wed Dec 8 at 2pm ET (week earlier due to holidays)

Next TWG-004 telecon : Tues Nov 30 at 3pm ET

New Action Items:

• Nov 24 – Ananth Rao to create area (materials for outreach) on SPG website that contains links to general SPG presentation, soft copy of Standards Process poster, and soft copy of one pager that describes the Standards Process.
• Dec 3 – Ming – send draft of one pager that describes the Standards Process and that encourages communities to submit RFCs to the Standards Process
• Dec 3 – Rich Ullman – to contact Michael Goodman and ask what the next few concrete steps are for the precipitation community to come to agreement on a content standard for level 2 precip products.
• Dec 3 – Yonsook to arrange telecon with EDC people to discuss the identification of the different groups within the land use/land cover and vegetation index communities who may potentially use the Standards Process.
• Dec 3 – Rich to contact John Townsend to ask him if groups within the land use/land cover community could use the Standards Process.

Decisions:

• What is the dividing line between "minor edits" and "technical content edits?" Our Standards Process says that technical content edits should result in a new RFC. Minor edits can be done during the Standards Process. Helen's comment : Maybe this will be our dividing line between edits to this version of the RFC and a new RFC altogether. If the comment is to correct the spec to better reflect the current data access protocol, it's an edit. If the comment is to change the protocol itself, it should be in a new RFC. There was general agreement that restarting the whole process with a new RFC should be done as a last resort.
• We will have an area on the SPG website where we have links to materials that can be used for community outreach by SPG members. This area will contain the latest version of an SPG presentation that contains a “pitch” to use the Standards Process, a soft copy of a poster, and a soft copy of a one-pager that encourages the use of the Standards Process by NASA’s Earth Science community.

Notes/Discussion:

• The notes from the Oct 19 breakout session is okay – just expand some of the acronyms used. Will be put on the website.
• The precipitation community had a breakout meeting at their Oct Monterey meeting to discuss the need for a general content standard for level 2 precipitation products. Joe Turk led that discussion. Michael Goodman gave a presentation there. There was general agreement that a level 2 product content standard would be useful and needed. Not clear what the precipitation community will do for its next steps to achieve that. Rich will contact Michael Goodman and ask what they will do next. One idea being floated is that the GPM mission science team will define the level 2 product content standard.
• If we are going to try to facilitate the land use/land cover community to use our Standards Process, we need to identify smaller factions within this vast community. Who to ask? EDC people could help. John Townsend could help. Yonsook will set up telecon with EDC staff to discuss this. Any SPG members welcome to attend. Rich will contact John Townsend to discuss this with him.
• When SPG members attend different science conferences or meetings, there could be opportunities to do outreach there. SPG will create an area on the SPG website with some outreach materials. Whenever appropriate, SPG members can hand out one page flyer, show a poster, give the SPG presentation, or informally discuss how a particular group could use the Standards Process to come to agreement. Ananth will create the area on the website. Ming volunteered to create a draft one-pager.
• Several SPG members are planning to attend the Dec AGU meeting. Rich will present the SPG poster there at a half day poster session. The outreach materials will be ready then if anyone needs it.
• DAP 2 Standards Process update :
  • About a dozen DAP 2 reviews received – some were spec reviews and some were operational reviews. We need more nasa.gov reviews. Rich will contact HQ list of stakeholders again to get additional reviews.
  • Some errors in the spec were found during the review. James Gallagher will be asked to revise the spec and release it as 0.1 version. We will not restart the whole review process again. The errors do not change the interface or protocol – it just changes how the interface/protocol was explained.
• Ideas for potential future RFCs – DIF, geotiff, ECHO APIs, … But if we want to adopt standards where adopting as a community standard would provide a benefit and an impact, may not want to consider DIF or ECHO APIs – these are from a centralized system. Adopting as a community standard won’t provide an impact or benefit or change how often it is used.