I periodically get information about NASA's datastandards. I don't have
time to tool at this now, but should we engage?
Karl
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Spg-announce] Request for Comments, Operational WMS 1.1.1
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:37:07 -0400
From: R. Ullman (for ES-DSWG Standards) <spg-rfc-006 at lists.nasa.gov>
To: spg-announce at lists.nasa.gov
To NASA stakeholders interested in the OGC WMS:
The Earth Science Data Systems Working Group's (ES-DSWG) Standards
Process Group (SPG) has completed a review of NASA stakeholder
implementation of WMS. That review resulted in a recommendation that
NASA not consider WMS 1.3 a community standard, but instead to
consider version 1.3 a promising emerging standard. We are still in
the process of assessing whether WMS version 1.1.1 should be
recommended as a NASA community standard.
We have found that many NASA stakeholder projects have successfully
implemented WMS version 1.1.1, we are now asking for comments on the
operational aspects of WMS version 1.1.1. Is WMS an effective
technology for data interuse, interoperability or data sharing in an
operational environment?
You may use the questions below (and attached in MS Word) as a
framework for responding to this Request For Comments (RFC). Please
respond before May 1.
About NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process:
Standards Track RFCs require two rounds of community review by NASA
programs, projects or stakeholders. The first is to confirm multiple
successful implementation of the proposed standard with NASA data or
data systems, the second is to assess operational effectiveness in
contributing to NASA's data and systems interoperability using the
proposed standard. For more information about the standards process,
see
http://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/ The index of RFC's is at:
http://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/docindexfolder
-Richard Ullman (for the WMS technical working group of the SPG)
- - - -
Review of WMS 1.1.1 operational experience:
NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process Group (SPG) is
considering the OpenGIS Web Map Service Implementation Specification
Version 1.1.1 (WMS) for adoption as a community standard. If you are
not using Version 1.1.1 but are using other versions, please indicate
which version(s) and provide answers accordingly. You can find the
latest version of the RFC here -
http://spg.gsfc.nasa.gov/rfc/ese-rfc-006/ This is the second review
of WMS, this one focusing on its operational experience. The
questions below are provided to guide your feedback. You only need to
answer questions applicable to you. Please send comments to
ese-rfc-006 at lists.nasa.gov.
1. Describe in a sentence or two your overall operational experience
related to WMS. (e.g., scientific visualization; geospatial
visualization, etc). What kinds of WMS servers and/or clients do you
have experience with? (e.g., commercial products, open source, or
independent implementations, please provide as much detail as
possible).
2. What types of applications do you use WMS servers/clients for?
Are they suitable for your applications? (e.g., Do they work well
with the data types and data manipulations in your application?)
3. Why do you choose to use WMS over other protocols for your applications?
4. Are the WMS systems easy to use? (e.g., Is it hard to learn how
to use WMS systems?)
5. Does the performance of the WMS systems you have experienced meet
your requirements? (e.g., Does it take a long time to access/view
data in WMS systems?)
6. What operational challenges do the WMS systems present? (e.g.,
Does it require advanced processing power, large amounts of memory,
complex configuration, etc.? Are the systems easy to deploy and
maintain?)
7. How well do the WMS systems scale to large numbers of simultaneous
users, or to large datasets?
8. Can you provide information on user statistics of your WMS
systems? How have the user statistics changed over time?
--
Richard E. Ullman
NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center
richard.e.ullman at nasa.gov
+1 301 614-5228
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ESE-RFC-006-op-review-v1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20060403/7e65e560/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: file:///tmp/nsmail-1.asc
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20060403/7e65e560/attachment.asc>
Received on Mon Apr 03 2006 - 11:59:13 BST
