Earth Science Data System Working Groups A Community Approach Kathy Fontaine NASA WGISS-22 Annapolis, MD September 13, 2006

2 History and Evolution »Working Prototype Earth Science Information Partners (ESIPs) >Concept Increase the level of peer-reviewed competition of data system work and create a more heterogeneous and distributed system (as compared with the DAAC structure) >Result The ESIP Federation was formed, and now receives funding from multiple Federal agencies

3 »New Data and Information Systems and Services (NewDISS) >Concept Create the foundational principles for a NASA infrastructure that links existing data resources, while facilitating the evolution of data management into information and knowledge management. >Recommendations Include Support a spectrum of heterogeneous participants, approaches, and technologies to NewDISS through competition and peer review. Clearly define the components of NewDISS, and ensure suitable management of the interfaces between them, and empower science investigators with an appropriate degree of responsibility and authority for NewDISS data system development, processing, archiving and distribution. Charter, without delay, a transition team with the objective of developing a transition plan, based on the findings and recommendations of this document that would lead to the initiation of a NewDISS starting in History and Evolution

4 »SEEDS Study >Concept Provide the transition plan to the NewDISS concepts. >Recommendations Include Actively encourage the data system and user communities through (initially) 4 working groups – Technology Infusion, Standards Processes, Reuse, and Metrics Planning and Reporting. Develop a cost estimation tool for use during peer- reviewed competition of data systems. Coming soon – Data Life Cycle Working Group History and Evolution

5 Earth Science Data System Working Groups »Began with Research, Education, and Applications Solutions Network (REASoN) winners >First 4 WGs populated with REASoN winners (through award terms) and Federation members (through common interest). >Now populated with REASoN and ACCESS award winners, and other volunteers. >Meet jointly once per year (fall time frame) to share accomplishments, ideas, goals >Time set aside for working sessions (individual or joint) >Speakers of common interest at plenary sessions >Work plans for the next FY developed »Develop recommendations based on community inputs and/or HQ needs >Recommendations forwarded to HQ for discussion >Steering committee concept under development

6 Working Group Leads »Technology Infusion >Karen Moe, GSFC/ESTO >Rob Raskin, JPL »Standards Processes >Richard Ullman, GSFC >Ming Tsou, SDSU »Metrics Planning and Reporting >H. Ramapriyan, GSFC/ESDIS >Paul Davis, UMD/GLCF »Reuse >Robert Wolfe, GSFC >Vic Delnore, LaRC

7 Scope Information technologies that... Provide capabilities critical to Earth science mission & vision Have been substantially developed (TRL 6-9) but not widely deployed Cannot be obtained simply through reuse of mature subsystems or software May be slow to adopt due to unique characteristics of Earth science data (e.g., large volumes, 4-dimensions) Mission Enable NASA Earth Science management to reach its research, application, and education goals more quickly and cost effectively through widespread adoption of key emerging information technologies Working Group Co-chairs: Karen Moe, NASA/ESTO and Rob Raskin, NASA JPL Telecon schedule 1 st Thursday, Full working group 2 nd Thursday, Process and Strategies subgroup 3 rd Thursday, Semantic Web subgroup 4 th Thursday, Web Services subgroup Mailing list (including telecon announcements): Collaboration site (document repository): or Capability Needs Technology Projections Technology Roadmaps Technology Development Technology Infusion Operational Systems Identified Gaps Solicitation Formulation Peer Review & Competitive Selection Capability Vision Technology Infusion

8 Capability Vision Subgroup Describes 10 capabilities comprising an ES information system capability vision Identifies technologies critical to achieving the vision Positions capabilities and technologies within a real-world scenario Used to develop a shared understanding of the vision within the community Delivered in two versions 30 minute overview of capabilities 5 minute highlights with narration Semantic Web Subgroup Develop awareness and understanding of Semantic Web technologies and capabilities within the working group. Develop a plan for wider dissemination of technologies, capabilities, and opportunities to the wider Earth science communities. Contribute to the maturation of Earth science ontologies Identify components of semantic web and map to NASA TRLs. Develop an initial roadmap for Semantic Web infusion in the Earth science domain. -- subgroup lead: Rob Raskin, NASA JPL -- monthly telecon - 3rd Thursday, 2:00 pm EST Process and Strategies Subgroup Technology Infusion Process – Apply TIWG Infusion Process to practical examples of technology infusion. Use lessons learned to refine the infusion process. Technology Infusion Plan – Assist with the develop technology infusion plan(s) for selected project(s). Use lessons learned to develop a template infusion plan for use by other projects. Barriers and Solutions – Apply TIWG Infusion Barriers and Solutions to practical examples of technology infusion. Use to assist the the identification of potential barriers and mitigation strategies. Use lessons learned to refine barriers and solutions. -- subgroup lead: Steve Olding, NASA GSFC -- monthly telecon - 2nd Thursday, 2:00 pm EST Web Services Subgroup Develop practical demonstration(s) of web services and web services chaining capabilities. Document lessons learned from the web services demonstrations. Provide feedback to OGC on Web Coverage Service. Promote the participation of the Earth science community in the ECHO web services testbed. Survey REASoN and ACCESS projects to assess coverage and TRL of web services technologies. Review and update the Web Services Roadmap. Identify gaps in needed and available services. Work with Standards and Reuse working groups to develop recommendations for accelerating the infusion of geospatial web services. -- subgroup lead: Ken Keiser, UAH -- monthly telecon - 4th Thursday, 2:00 pm EST Technology Infusion

9 New information system capabilities will provide the ability to quickly distill petabytes of data into usable information and knowledge. New observational capabilities will provide better resolution & coincident coverage Improved modeling and prediction capabilities will require improved observation and information systems Earth Science Provides Important Information to Individuals, Organizations, and Societies Global observations from Earth observing satellites provide useful data on weather, climate, and natural hazards Knowledge gained through Earth science research has improved our understanding of Earth systems and global change NASAs focus in the future will be on improving modeling and prediction capabilities Helps us focus our efforts What capabilities are needed to achieve the Earth science goals? What technologies need to be infused most? What standards are needed most? What reusable components are needed most? Helps us measure progress What is the roadmap for deploying new capabilities? How much progress have we made toward achieving the vision? Why a Capability Vision for Information Systems? About the Capability Vision: Describes 10 capabilities comprising an Earth science information system capability vision Identifies technologies critical to achieving the vision Positions capabilities and technologies within a real- world scenario Used to develop a shared understanding of the vision within the community Initially delivered in two versions - 30 minute overview of capabilities and 5 minute highlights with narration Severe weather prediction improvement scenario Hypothetical science scenario to illustrate the envisioned capabilities in a practical context Only one of many possible scenarios Based on one of six science focus areas in NASAs Earth science strategy How Will New Information System Capabilities Help? Technology Infusion

10 Metrics Planning and Reporting »Why Metrics? >Internal management of projects >Program level reporting of progress and accomplishments >Aggregated assessment of Program (e.g., REASoN, ACCESS) for continuation of similar programs »Why MPARWG? >Community involvement in process >Provide ability for participating projects to assess and recommend revisions to help evolve metrics with time

11 MPAR Working Group »Mission Statement for the WG >Review and recommend program-level performance metrics and collection tools that measure how well each data activity supports the NASA Science Mission Directorates Earth science, application and education programs »Membership in WG >WG membership open to NASA data and service provider community (REASoN projects, DAACs, SIPSs, etc.) >We are open to suggestions for participation by others »Scope of Work >WG provides on-going MPAR review, evaluation, recommendations and metrics evolution for the NASA ES data and service provider community > WG recommends additions, deletions or modifications to set of metrics. Recommendations may be approved or rejected by NASA. If approved, NASA Science Mission Directorate funded Earth science data and service providers will have to make recommended changes in their reporting

12 Program Level Metrics in Use Today »Current set of core (baseline) Program-Level Metrics >Number of Distinct Users >Characterization of Distinct Users Requesting Products and Information (by Internet domain) >Number of Products Delivered to Users >Number of Distinct Product Types Produced and Maintained by Project >Volume of Data Distributed >Total Volume of Data Available for Research and Other Users >Delivery Time of Products to Users >Support for Earth Science (Research) Focus Areas * >Support for Earth Science Applications of National Importance * >Support for Earth Science Education Initiatives * »In addition, free-text comments and impact metrics are encouraged and collected >* When applicable

13 Example of how the Impact Metrics output appears – standardized size (one page), one graphic, with contact information at the bottom. Multiple Impact Metrics entries can be collected and disseminated to encourage similar activities/funding. Sample Impact Metrics

14 Metrics Reporting »All Projects are required to report »Reporting frequency can vary case by case >Default Frequency – monthly; due on 15th of each month for the previous month >Exceptions can be arranged with your Program Manager >Report through a dedicated web site »We send out monthly reminders >Ramapriyan sending them now >Looking into automating »We follow-up to ensure reports are in, and to resolve any problems (e.g., clarifications on what metrics mean) »Quarterly summaries are produced for use by Program Office »Specialized reports can be provided for Study Managers if needed

15 Related Work »Other related work – all tools demod at Joint WG meetings >Cost estimation tool Developed from initial SEEDS work on level of effort within the existing data systems Expanded to include all DAACs, SIPSs, and some space science data systems (28 entities in current database). Requires frequent updates Seeking open source status; currently US government only >Metrics reporting Tool Offshoot of the Federation metrics tool developed by University of Maryland Currently used to collect periodic data system metrics from REASoNs and ACCESS projects >Milestone reporting tool Offshoot of ESTO ebook, tailored to smaller awards First use will be for ACCESS projects; functionality updated as needed. >Web site support for the REASoN and ACCESS projects. ACCESS coming soon

16 Information Links to all working groups, activities, meetings, REASoN and ACCESS projects, and more!