"Seegrid will be due for a migration to confluence on the 1st of August. Any update on or after the 1st of August will NOT be migrated"

Edinburgh 2011 Face-To-Face Meeting

Dates

The meeting is scheduled from 4 July 2011 to 8 July 2011

View-over-Edinburgh.jpg

Getting to Edinburgh

Edinburgh Airport has direct flights from many European cities with both full service and budget airlines. It also has a daily United/Continental Airlines service from Newark, USA. However generally coming from outside Europe it is necessary to connect at London Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt. Flights and airlines change frequently but up to date information on available services can be found on the Edinburgh Airport website.

There are also trains approximately every hour from London Kings Cross station (journey time about 4.5 hours). Kings Cross is just next to St Pancras station from where there are regular Eurostar services to Paris and Brussels.

The easiest way to get to Edinburgh city centre from the airport is by taxi (around £20) but there is also an airport bus (#100) every 10 minutes to the main Waverley railway station in the centre of the city. This costs £3.50.

Meeting location

The BGS office is situated around 2.5 miles south of the city centre on the science campus of Edinburgh University. It is about a 40 minute walk from the centre of the city and there are also regular bus services. #41 (Kings Buildings) stops immediately outside BGS, and services #24, #41 (Craighouse), #42, and #67 have stops close to BGS and all go downtown by various routes. Details of Edinburgh bus services are available from the Lothian Buses website. You buy tickets on the buses (£1.30) but you need the exact money (you can pay more but they won't give you change!).

Map of BGS office location.

Accommodation

There are several hotels and guest houses within easy walking distance of BGS. However as there are few pubs or restaurants nearby you may prefer to stay in the city centre. There are a huge number of accomodation options in Edinburgh, with most of the international chains represented as well as numerous independents. Full information is available from the Edinburgh Tourist Board but listed below are some places regularly used by visitors to BGS, both close to the office and in the city centre.

Near BGS:

Allison House Hotel - http://www.allisonhousehotel.com/

Auld Reekie Guest House - http://www.auldreekie-guesthouse.co.uk/

Edinburgh Highfield Guest House - http://www.highfieldgh.co.uk/

Kildonan Lodge Hotel - http://www.kildonanlodgehotel.co.uk/

Travelodge, Edinburgh Cameron Toll - http://www2.travelodge.co.uk/search_and_book/hotel_overview.php?hotel_id=418

City Centre:

Parliament House Hotel (if you say you are a visitor to BGS you should get a corporate rate here of ~£80/night) - http://www.parliamenthouse-hotel.co.uk/index.php

Ibis, Edinburgh Centre - http://www.ibishotel.com/gb/hotel-2039-ibis-edinburgh-centre/index.shtml

Travelodge, Edinburgh Central - http://www2.travelodge.co.uk/search_and_book/hotel_overview.php?hotel_id=205

Novotel, Edinburgh Centre - http://www.novotel.com/gb/hotel-3271-novotel-edinburgh-centre/index.shtml

Best Western, Edinburgh City Hotel - http://www.bestwesternedinburghcity.co.uk/

Confirmed Attendees

  • JohnLaxton - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • TimDuffy - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • DalePercival - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • OliverRaymond - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July (Parliament House Hotel)
  • LarsStolen - confirmed attendance 4 July - 6 July (Best Western, Edinburgh City Hotel)
  • StefanBergman - confirmed attendance 4 July - 6 July (Parliament House Hotel)
  • GuillaumeDuclaux - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • JouniVuollo - confirmed attendance 4 July - 7 July (Parliament House Hotel)
  • Clemens Portele - confirmed attending 4th July - 5th July (until noon only)
  • MarcusSen - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July (Kildonan Lodge)
  • JamesPassmore - confirmed attendance 4 july - 8 july
  • JeanJacquesSerrano - confirmed attendance 4 July - 5 July
  • BruceSimons - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July (Best Western, Edinburgh City Hotel)
  • AgnesTellezArenas - confirmed attendance 6 July (noon) - 8 July
  • DanielCassard - confirmed attendance 4 July - 6 July
  • FlorenceCagnard - confirmed attendance 4 July - 6 July
  • Mark Rattenbury - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • Robert Tomas - confirmed attendance 4 July - 5 July
  • CarloCipolloni - confirmed attendance 4 July - 7 July (Parliament House Hotel)
  • EricBoisvert - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • Koki Iwao - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • SteveRichard - confirmed attendance 4 July - 8 July
  • ChrisSchubert - confirmed attendance 4 July - 6 July

Outline agenda (draft)

This is the first (very) outline agenda. I am assuming at present that the main focus will be on the Testbed 4. Those responsible for each session should provide a detailed agenda and expand on the items below.

EdinburghF2F2011Minutes

Monday 4th July (am)

Monday 4th July (pm)

  • Testbed 4 results of relevance to Data Model Design
    • Instance document review TB4InstanceDocuments
    • Schematron rules GeoSciML3SchematronRules
    • WFS v2 and GML v3.2 services
      • Implementations
        • Snowflake
        • GeoServer
        • Deegree
        • ESRI ArcGIS for INSPIRE WFS v2 services using GA data sets for GeologicUnit and possibly ShearDisplacementStructure (Faults, Shears and Contacts) - ClemensPortele

Tuesday 5th July (am)

Tuesday 5th July (pm)

Wednesday 6th July

Thursday 7th July

  • Testbed 4 status any further issues not of relevance to Data Model design- AgnesTellezArenas, EricBoisvert (may not be any left)
  • Service Architecture: including progress with Geoserver supporting GML 3.2.1. complex property schemas and WFS2 (already reported on), and, AUscope provided schematron tools for production services EricBoisvert, AgnesTellezArenas
  • Finishing the Schematron rules for implementing Production interoperable GeoSciML 3.0 WFS' including demo of draft schematron web service. MarcusSen - at least 2 hoursr
  • Short brefing by Marcus on differences between WFS 1.1 and WFS 2 from experience. MarcusSen.
  • Property binding (how to tell a client which vocab should be used with which property, etc..) EricBoisvert - at least one hour - see draft document attached at bottom of this page and here:
  • ComplexValues.doc: Draft of some ideas to bind properties to vocabularies (amongst other things)
  • OWS Context - EricBoisvert - 15 minutes

Friday 8th July (am)

  • Interoperability Working Group (Steering Group) Open Meeting - JohnLaxton - see EdinburghF2F2011Minutes
    • Issues arising during the week:
      • Action to contribute to INSPIRE data specification consultation. JLL to send out information.
      • Action to address CGI Council perceptions re GeoSciML-Portrayal and INSPIRE
      • Way forward with Geoscience Concepts Group
      • Hosting services - decision?
      • CGI co-funded 'documentation for OGC' Work: Program 3 (Budget of euro5000 ) completion of testdatabase with contacts and fault data.Test database is for GeoSciML documentation/mapping examples and documentation for GeoSciML 3.0 becoming an OGC standard.Main.BruceSimons to describe the scope of the missing work- volunteer needed to complete the existing Auscope work.
    • Relationship with OGC - how do we take this forward? Pros/Cons document. Anything else?
    • Governance of schemas/vocabularies - follows from above?
    • Workplan for coming year - anything outstanding?
    • Next Face-to-Face Meeting
    • AOB

Friday 8th July (2:00 - 5:30 pm)

AGENDA:

1). Apologies and attendees

APOLOGIES: CarloCipolloni (ISPRA-Italy); LarsStolen (SGU-Sweden) 2). Minutes of 6th meeting on 8th October 2010, Accra, Ghana – see http://www.onegeology.org/docs/technical/sixthMeeting/TWG_meeting_MINUTES_Ghana_081010_final.pdf

3). Matters arising from last meeting:

ACTIONS ARISING FROM ONEGEOLOGY TWG MEETING OF 08/10/2010: Action point

Action

AP1

Discussions are now taking place between the OneGeology secretariat and Bosnia-Herzegovina

RESULT:The buddy form was completed 19 April 2011 by Hazim Hrvatovi at the Geological Survey of Bosnia and Herzegovinia. They have officially requested that Slovenia (GS) serve their 1:1M lithostrat maps. Slovenia now have permission to serve the data. Pending.

AP2

BGS will work with Clemens Portele for ESRI inc on testbed testing of ESRI software for future ESRI WFS capability

RESULT: Clemens reported progress to GeoSciML Testbed4 on 4/7/2011 and it is likely (ESRI Inc are to discuss shortly and confirm) that an ESRI inc add-on product called ArcGIS for INSPIRE will contain a geodatabase Template for GeoSciML V3.0 data to allow GeoSciML WFS2 services to be set up ESRI software suite offer for OneGeology countries (using INSPIRE developed technology which is identical regarding the need to serve WFS2 services for complex property GML 3.2.1 schemas like GeoSciML).

Action Main.TimDuffy: Clarify whether ESRI offer is just for national organisations or also covers regional 1G participants.

AP3

A bid to the IUGS CGI Council has recently been made to create these tools and documentation necessary for supporting Geosciml 3.0 production services. If bid successful, tools and documentation will be produced to support more OneGeology WFS’ in 2011.

RESULT: Bid successful and progress will be reported on agenda item

AP4

email and offer of support from onegeologyhelp@bgs.ac.uk on 09/09/2010 has been sent to the 9 buddies hosting approx. 17 WMS’ for other Geological Surveys around the world – onegeologyhelp to help them and monitor progress.

RESULT:No response so far. Action JamesPassmore to contact organisations again.

AP5

BGR is working on Chad – Markus to pass contact details to Tim.

RESULT: 1G secretariat to contact Chad via BGR contact: Thomas Himmelsbach

AP6

Mesfin of SEAMIC offered to host for any of the ‘South Eastern’ African countries currently on the participants map but clearly not serving/being served.

RESULT: last report was that SEAMIC will serve the Uganda and Ethiopia WMS (from a server in the Amazon cloud) and then move on to serving the other SEAMIC SLA countries including Tanzania.

AP7

Carlo – did not Israel offer to host countries near it at some meeting after Brighton? – ACTION: 1g secretariat to follow up.

RESULT:The secretariat have had no communication from Israel and they are not serving data. Luca Demicheli of EGS hopes to supply an Isreal contact details to the 1G secretariat.

AP8

Markus believes BGR offered to host Ivory Coast – any progress Horst-Gunter Troppenhagen ? Action: 1g secretariat to follow up.

RESULT: Ivory Coast have accepted the BGR offer to buddy host, everything is ready and BGR await the data from Ivory Coast.

AP9

liaison between the BGS 1GG service side support and BRGM 1GG client/catalogue support (not present at this meeting) was required to work out what to propose in practice for enhanced dataset and service metadata and they are due to meet in January 2010 in Orleans to work out a proposal on this. The TWG would be informed (agenda item 4).

AP10

Tim to report this accreditation scheme feedback to 1G OMG accreditation sub-group.

RESULT: the OMG approved scheme will be described in agenda item 5 including the technological support and issues involved.
4). Report and discussion on new core 19115 based Metadata Profile for OneGeology services and datasets – JPASS/AT-A

Reference: Core iso 19115 list from OneGeology WMS cookbook (section 2.7)

Core ISO 19115
Mandatory (M): The metadata entity or metadata element shall be documented
Conditional (C): The metadata entity or metadata element shall be documented if another entity or element has been documented,
or if a condition is or isn’t met elsewhere.
Optional (O): Provided to allow users to document their data more fully.
Dataset title (M)

A unique title (within your metadata records) for your data.

Spatial representation type (O)

The method used to represent geographic information in the dataset.
i.e., vector, grid, TIN etc.

Dataset reference date (M) Reference system (O)
Dataset responsible party (O) Lineage (O)
Geographic location of the dataset (by four coordinates or by geographic identifier) (C)

If the metadata applies to a data set which is spatially referenced (such as a OneGeology WMS) this is required.

On-line resource (O)
Dataset language (M)

Language(s) used within the dataset. Required even if the resource does not include any textual information; defaults to the Metadata language.

Metadata file identifier (O)

Unique identifier for this metadata file

Dataset character set (C)

Full name of the character encoding used for the data set. You must supply this character set if you are not using the ISO/IEC 10646-1 character set and if your character set is not defined by the document encoding.

Metadata standard name (O)

Name of the metadata standard (including profile name) used

Dataset topic category (M)

Main theme(s) of the data set described using the most appropriate term defined in the standard; for OneGeology services these are likely to be one or more from: ‘geoscientificInformation’, ‘economy’ (for layers showing mineral resources), or ’imageryBaseMapsEarthCover

Metadata standard version (O)

Version (profile) of the metadata standard used

Spatial resolution of the dataset (O)

Scale or factor which provides a general understanding of the density of the spatial data in the dataset.

Metadata language (C)

Language used to document the metadata. You must supply the metadata language if it is not defined by the document encoding.

Note for INSPIRE GEMINI metadata you must always supply the metadata language.

Abstract defining the dataset (M)

Brief narrative summary of the content of the resource.

Metadata character set (C)

Full name of the character encoding used for the metadata set. You must supply this character set in your metadata if you are not using the ISO/IEC 10646-1 character set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Character_Set) AND if your character set is not defined by the document encoding. Note as most XML and HTML pages provide a character set as part of their own metadata, it is likely that you will not need to explicitly state this for your own layer metadata

Distribution format (O) Metadata point of contact (M)

Party responsible for the metadata information

Additional extent information for the dataset (vertical and temporal) (O) Metadata date stamp (M)
The majority of the core iso 19115 metadata are already captured in the current OneGeology WMS GetCapabilites response. To capture all core metadata in a WMS GetCapabilites response we have to supply four additional bits of metadata. We can use the service keywords and layer keywords to add this metadata.

The required service-level metadata are detailed in the cookbook in section 2.4.1 Required service-level metadata

Specifically for service keywords the new requirement is as follows:

A list of keywords or short phrases that users of the OneGeology portal and other catalogue services could use to search/discover your services. You must include the keywords OneGeology and two special @ style keywords (MD_DATE@[value] and MD_LANG@[value]) that will be used to populate the OneGeology catalogue of services.
MD_DATE@ is used to add a date for when the information in the GetCapabilites file for the service was last updated, (for MapServer services this would be the same as a change to the .map configuration file). For example the exemplar BGS_Bedrock_and_Superficial_Geology service has a MD_DATE@ keyword of MD_DATE@2011-06-15
MD_LANG@ is used to add the language (using the ISO 639-3 three letter codes) that the GetCapabilites file is populated with. This may be different from the language that the service returns its data in. For example the exemplar BGS_Bedrock_and_Superficial_Geology service has a MD_LANG@ keyword of MD_LANG@ENG
The keywords for a service will therefore look something like (taken from the exemplar service):

<KeywordList>
<Keyword>OneGeology</Keyword>
<Keyword>geology</Keyword>
<Keyword>map</Keyword>
<Keyword>United Kingdom</Keyword>
<Keyword>bedrock</Keyword>
<Keyword>superficial</Keyword>
<Keyword>lithology</Keyword>
<Keyword>lithostratigraphy</Keyword>
<Keyword>age</Keyword>
<Keyword>MD_LANG@ENG</Keyword>
<Keyword>MD_DATE@2011-06-15</Keyword>
</KeywordList>

The layer keyword requirements and recommendations are described in the cookbook in section 2.6 Other Layer metadata

Specifically for layer keywords the new requirement is as follows:

Layer (Data set) date DS_DATE@value Required
Layer (Data set) topic category DS_TOPIC@value Required (one or more)
The topic category is taken from the ISO 19119 topic category listing. A good reference to the categories and what they represent is found at: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/User/difguide/iso_topics.html. We anticipate that most layers would have a DS_TOPIC@geoscientificinformation keyword.

The Data set date is intended to be the date the LAYER was created.

The keywords for a layer will therefore look something like (taken from AFG AGS 1:1M Bedrock Age):

<KeywordList>
<Keyword>OneGeology</Keyword> 
<Keyword>geology</Keyword> 
<Keyword>Afghanistan</Keyword>
<Keyword>continent@Asia</Keyword> 
<Keyword>subcontinent@South-central Asia</Keyword> 
<Keyword>geographicarea@Afghanistan</Keyword> 
<Keyword>serviceprovider@British Geological Survey</Keyword> 
<Keyword>dataprovider@Afghanistan Geological Survey</Keyword> 
<Keyword>DS_TOPIC@geoscientificinformation</Keyword>
<Keyword>DS_DATE@2008-12-03</Keyword>
</KeywordList>

Action AgnesTellezArenas: Display the DS_DATE and DS_TOPIC in the 1G Portal layer details pop-down box.


5). Report on progress with publication of GeoSciML v3.0 and hence rollout and support for OneGeology level 2 WFS’ with cookbook and open source software and schematron validation support

Planned publication date of GeoSciML v3.0 is September 2011.

Also expect to have WFS v2.0 capable GeoServer by this date.

Will have a web validation service to check Schema validity of instances and, in addition, extra Schematron rule checking.

Should also have a web service to validate many aspects of WMS and WFS services.

These should help participants set up their services and help the help desk to check services before they are registered in the Portal.

6). Report and discussion of new OneGeology 5 star service accreditation scheme – TRD

OneGeology Web Services Accreditation Scheme

1. Introduction

This scheme is intended to provide an incentive for geological survey organisations (GSOs) who are participants in OneGeology and help them be more responsive to the needs of current and potential users of their map data. Practicality, attainability and simplicity of operation have been the key points in the design of the scheme. The criteria which are set out below were produced by reference to the overall OneGeology system, the GeoSciML protocols, the European INSPIRE Directive good practice in data and service sharing guidance, and last but not least the views of users. The Scheme has been developed by the OneGeology Coordination and Technical teams, with input from the Steering and Operational Management Groups. A scheme such as this can never be 100% quantitative, but this is not an issue; the intention of this scheme is to progressively raise the standard of GSO services, not seek perfection. The scheme is aspirational!

2. How it will operate

All existing OneGeology map service providers are regarded as already having attained the One Star level and graphics will mailed to them shortly. GSOs who wish to be accredited for Two or more Stars will apply to the OneGeology secretariat via email (onegeology@bgs.ac.uk) – see section 4. The GSO will state the Star Rating and level of service they believe they meet. Their service will then be assessed by OneGeology Coordination and Technical team members. If the application meets the criteria the GSO will receive notification by email and at the same time receive files containing the appropriate OneGeology Star graphics. These graphics and any of the text within "Definition of Star Ratings" below may be used by the GSO on its web site or other communications and PR material. If the service is assessed as not meeting the criteria, feedback will be provided to the GSO and the application can be immediately re-submitted after corrective action. A reasonable degree of tolerance will be given; for example, if an issue which results in non-compliance is outside the control of the organisation, this will be taken into account in the assessment. All services should be available for better than 95% of the year. Regular re-assessment will be made by the OneGeology Coordination and Technical teams on at least an annual basis. OMG 6 Papers 06 June 2011 Page 38 of 57 3. Definition of the Star Ratings Star Rating

Level of service attained
Technical and service parameters to be met
One star Basic Web Map Service (WMS) Web Map Service (WMS) supporting "GetCapabilities" and "GetMap" requests to deliver map images.
Two star Upgraded Web Map Service (WMS) • One Star requirements met

• Map legend provided.

• Minimum metadata available (contact information, abstract, access constraints, cataloguing keywords)..
Three star Enhanced Web Map Service (WMS) • Two Star requirements met

• "GetFeatureInfo" (at least text/html format) request supported.

• Web Map Service (WMS) v. 1.3.0 supported.

Note: this will require existing 1GE services to deploy the new eXows connector to replace the previous 1GEconnector to be fully WMS compliant.

Action AgnesTellezArenas to check whether a v.1.3.0 only service that doesn't support v.1.1.0 as well can be supported by the Portal.

• Where Age harmonization is offered in a service layer it should be based on "International Commission on Stratigraphy" standards (http://www.stratigraphy.org).

Action TimDuffy: Consult on whether ICS above should be changed to IUGS.

• Additional keywords to make GetCapabilities response ISO19115 core compliant

• Clear statement of use relating to data, including licence and charging details (where appropriate).

• Access to data must be transparent, simple and fair to all.
Four star Web Feature Service (WFS) •Three Star requirements met

• "MetadataURL" for each WMS layer and WFS feature type conforming to the OneGeology metadata profile.

Action TimDuffy to check above should be re-phrased as MetadataURL for each WMS layer and WFS feature type should point to a metadata record conforming at least to the OneGeology metadata profile.

• Web Feature Service (WFS) at a minimum v. 1.1.0.

Note: This will require some upgrades of existing 1GE services to support correct WFS query typename.

• To deliver map features in a GeoSciML format.
Five star Enhanced Web Feature Service (WFS) •Four Star requirements met

• To deliver map features in GeoSciML v3 (or later), queryable using standard "Commission for Geoscience Information" (CGI) vocabularies for age and lithological properties, and compliant with profiles e validated by Schematron.
Discussed the best technical way to record stars. The promotional aim is to rate each organisation serving data but technically the catalogue stores layers and services not organisations and the technical criteria apply to services (with the slight caveat that WFS rating strictly depends on having a WMS as well). A technical use of the rating system might be to provide information to a client on the level of compliance but this isn't possible with the current system. The Portal catalogue is a technical system and is only suitable for holding technical data. Thus the data about which organisation has which star rating will be stored in a separate database of some sort and this information will be usable for display both on the www.onegeology.org list of participating organisations and against the data provider name in the layer display in the portal. There was also discussion of the possibility of having a parallel technical star system to be recorded against services which would actually be usable by a client to know what queries could be carried out on that service. This latter proposal will be discussed further depending on the technical capabilities of a service that could be of importance to a client. There was further discussion about the desirability of organisations being able to see their star ratings against their services in the catalogue but as the star rating can depend on more than one service the TWG decided that this was not sensible. The clarification was made that for a service to fulfill the criteria above every layer or feature in the service must satisfy the criteria (e.g. every layer must have a MetadataURL).

6) Report on OneGeology portal improvements, current and planned, based on the above developments – AT-A

Reviewed recent upgrades to the portal like greater browser compatibility etc.

Also discussed futher improvements that could be made.

Discussed supporting polar projections for arctic and antarctic maps. These wouldn't be supported by all services so they would return error images in those cases. Decided it would still be worth supporting if documentation made clear that users would have to make sure the layers they have selected support the projection they are asking for. Some issues with reporting of supported CRSs were discussed (GeoServer listing all projections in database?) and the details will be looked into.

7). Changes to the OneGeology-Europe WFS connector (now open source and called eXows) to allow 1GE WMS and WFS to be fully OGC standards conformant and therefore conformant with the other WMS/WFS in the 1GG portal.

8). Round table discussion on progress of (new and old) services, including Russia and China, around the globe leading up to the IGC34 at Brisbane , August 2012.

China have undertaken to put up a 1:5M service in time for launching at Brisbane.

Japanese and japanese hosted services have just been put back up.

ISPRA are to offer to host a Moroccan service.

SEAMIC are to serve Ethiopia and Uganda.

Poland offered to provide technical assistance and possibly host a Ukrainian service. Action OneGeology secretariat to contact Ukraine and see if they are interested in this offer.

9). Any Other Competent Business (please before the meeting email Tim on trd@bgs.ac.uk if you wish to raise anything else).

Next meeting is likely to be with the proposed next GeoSciML working group meeting in Wellington just after IGC34. To be confirmed.

  • The attendees at the meeting on 5 July 2011. Others were also present on other days.:
    GeoSciML_Group_Edinburgh_2011.jpg
Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
ComplexValues.docdoc ComplexValues.doc manage 174.0 K 04 Jul 2011 - 19:13 EricBoisvert Draft of some ideas to bind properties to vocabularies (amongst other things)
GSML_architecture_2.pptppt GSML_architecture_2.ppt manage 2456.0 K 08 Jul 2011 - 15:59 EricBoisvert Architecture / OGC gap analysis and vocabulary
GeoSciML_Group_Edinburgh_2011.jpgjpg GeoSciML_Group_Edinburgh_2011.jpg manage 2438.9 K 20 Jul 2011 - 11:11 BruceSimons The attendees at the meeting on 5 July 2011. Others were also present on other days.
Topic revision: r58 - 04 Aug 2011, JohnLaxton
 

Current license: All material on this collaboration platform is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence (CC BY 3.0).