1. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 HMA Follow-On Task 3 Online Data Access in the frame of ESA's Heterogeneous Missions Accessibility (HMA) initiative Preliminary Review (PR) 2010-02-03

2. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 2 Agenda  Management  Current Status / Progress  Main Achievements in Past Period  Issues Identified  Next steps  Technical  Details of WCS 2.0  Harmonisation of Data Models  Requirements Baseline (RB) Documents  Discussion

3. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 3 Task Schedule

4. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 4 Task Schedule

5. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 5 Management Current Status WP Ref.TitleStatus WP 1000Management 1100Overall Project Coordination (incl. CM, QA)according to plan 1600Project Reportingaccording to plan WP 2000EO Requirements for ODA 2100EO Data & Service Characteristicsfinished 2200EO Metadata Requirementsfinished 2300GSC­ DA, DAIL, HMA-E Interface Requirementsfinished 2400SSE Client Requirementsfinished 2500GEOSS & INSPIRE Standardsfinished 2600Service Industry Needsfinished 2700Advanced Concepts (WCPS, P2P, Tiling,...)ongoing WP 3000Towards OpenGIS Standardization 3100/3200/3300/3400WCS 1.2 SWG Liaisonongoing

6. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 6 Management Current Status WP Ref.TitleStatus WP 3000Towards OpenGIS Standardization 3500OGC Interoperability Programmeto start 3600EO Application Profile Developmentto start 3700Contributions to EO AP & Conformance Testingto start 3800OGC Conformance Test Approach & Toolsto start WP 4000Software Implementation 4100WCS Server Extension Implementationto start 4200SSE Client Extension Implementationto start 4300Acceptance Test Planning (ECSS)to start 4700Advanced Concepts - Implementationsto start

7. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 7 Achievements Deliverables  Requirements Baseline Document (RB) (HMA-FO_ODA-RB_EOX-1.0.doc )  EO Metadata Requirements (EOMR) (HMA-FO_ODA-EOMR-RB_SPOT_0.2.docx)  EO Industry Needs (EOIN) (HMA-FO-ODA-EOIN_SPOT_RB-1.1.docx)  Technical Specification Document (TS) (HMA-FO_ODA-TS_EOX_20100127.doc )  HMA-TN: Specification Dependencies (hmafo-tn-0001-spb-v11-draft.doc)

8. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 8 Management Status of Deliverables DeliverableStatus Milestone Report v1.0 – released 27/01 Installation Plan Document created Review Item Discrepancies (RIDs) Document created Non Conformance Report (NCR) Document created Requirements Baseline Document (RB) v1.0 – released 27/01 Technical Specification (TS) v1.0 – released 27/01 Design Justification File (DJF) v0.1 – released 27/01 Design Definition File (DDF) v0.1 – released 27/01 Input to HMA Wiki PagesFirst Input provided Technical Data Packageplanned for AR Executive Summary & Final Presentation planned for FR

9. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 9 Achievements  WCS 2.0 draft submitted for RFC Process  GML 3.2.1 Application Schema for WCS (including XML Schema) (OGC 09-146)  WCS 2.0 Core (including XML Schema) (OGC 09-110)  WCS 2.0 Extension: KVP protocol (OGC 09-147)  WCS 2.0 Extension: XML/POST protocol (OGC 09-148)  WCS 2.0 Extension: SOAP protocol (OGC 09-149)  WCS 2.0 Overview: Core and Extensions (Best Practice) (OGC 09-153)  …plus 20 XML schema & example files  Additionally, separate: draft template for coverage format extensions (Best Practice)  Available at HMA Wiki http://wiki.services.eoportal.org/tiki-index.php?page=HMA-FO%20Deliverables

10. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 10 WCS Timeline WCS standardization: Timeline  Email vote on motion: “The WCS.SWG moves to publish the draft of WCS 2.0 forward to the RFC process. "  Motion passed on Jan. 19  Next steps (with tentative dates) [OGC 05-020r3]:  Review by OGC Architecture Board started  RFC (30 day; finished until March TC meeting?)  Responses to comments received (~2 weeks)  OGC TC & PC vote (60 days)  Post-adoption work by SWG ("some days")  Final Standard estimated at June TC meeting

11. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 11 Management Issues identified  All relevant Initiatives, Programs, and Projects hardly define requirements for the EO Online Data Access  It is assumed that knowledge about OGC Services (especially WCS) possibilities is not very thorough  Use cases have been defined based on the know- how of the team  Complex & time consuming coordination between  HMA needs and interests of different OGC SWG members  interlinking various services  Decision for WCS 2.0 introduced scheduling risk

12. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Documents  Milestone Report  Update PMP  Advanced Concepts - work continued  Technical Specification (TS)  Design Justification File (DJF)  Design Definition File (DDF)  HMA-TN: Specification Dependencies  HMA Requirements Spreadsheet  Adoption of GMLWCS  WCS 2.0  Harmonize / Coordinate with Task 1 Next Steps

13. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Next Steps  EO Application Profile Definition Approach – Analyse Requirements e.g. Catalogue, EO GML – List of needed WCS extensions e.g. GeoTIFF, CRS, Interpolation, WCS-T, WCPS – Align work on extensions with WCS SWG – Editing of EO WCS AP  OGC Conformance Test Approach ATS included in documents ETS implementation to start once specification including ATS to be considered stable

14. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Next Steps  WCS Server extension implementation Start in parallel to WCS standardization – Decision on OS Software to use – Adoption of WCS 2.0 – EO WCS AP  SSE Client extension implementation Start in parallel to WCS standardization – Adoption of WCS 2.0 (once server available) – EO WCS AP  Acceptance Test Planning

15. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Technical Agenda Details of WCS 2.0 – WCS GML Application Schema – WCS Core – Core & Extensions Overview Harmonisation of Data Models – EO GML <> (EO) WCS GML Requirements Baseline (RB) Documents – Use Cases Discussion

16. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 GML Schema Extension

17. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 WCS General

18. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 WCS Data Model

19. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 WCS Operations Practically identical to WCS 1.1 – GetCapabilities – DescribeCoverage – GetCoverage …but now concisely defined: response = pruned from server document

20. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 WCS GetCoverage Differentiation over WCS 1.1: subset = trim | slice → know result dimension! Result = GML coverage

21. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 21 WCS 2.0 Draft Overview

22. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 22 Harmonisation of data models WCS uses a GML Application Schema for its coverage metadata (as returned in response to DescribeCoverage operation) gmlwcs:AbstractCoverage extends gml:Abstract Coverage and adds more information on range structure Proposed to use instantiations of gmlwcs:AbstractCoverage ( e.g. gmlwcs:RectifiedCoverage) as extension for exploitation metadata in EO GML (Task 1) Extend EarthObservation result with one property coverage(Description) that can hold a specialisation of gmlwcs:AbstractCoverage (task 1)

23. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Slide 23 Harmonisation of data models Other way round, should a WCS not only provide gmlwcs:RectifiedGridCoverage information but as well the “EO GML” “envelope”? – Depending on the use case and chainage of different services – If discovery is done through EO EP of ebRIM CSW, information is already available at client side, no much added Should an EO WCS be usable standalone or allways in conjunction with EO EP of CSW?

24. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Use Case 1: Visualize and Browse Data (View Service) – US1_1: Use WMS or WMTS – US1_2: Use WCS Use Case 2: Retrieve grid geographic data (Download Service) – US2_1: Request single file/scene – US2_2: Request a subset of a file/scene or mosaic – US2_3: Retrieve data in Service Chain – US2_4: Subscription – US2_5: Time Series – US2_6: Security Use Cases

25. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Use Case 3: Optimizing access – US3_1: Numerous simultaneous requests for access to the same EO data – US3_2: Data is available from different servers Use Case 4: Supply Data (Add or Update Data / Transactional Service) – US4_1: Add a new mosaic – US4_2: Update a mosaic – US4_3: Update a mosaic keeping track of its history – US4_4: Delete a coverage Use Cases

26. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Client Use Cases – UC-Client-1 Visualize and Download Coverages – UC-Client-2 Configure WebMapViewer instance with coverage layers – UC-Client-3 Visualize Coverage "Service Results" Use Cases

27. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 MapServer developed under OSGeo umbrella Both implement WCS 1.0 and 1.1 Both support PostgreSQL/PostGIS DB binding MapServer provides scripting language bindings → flexibility MapServer faster handling of raster data → performance see Technical Specification Document (TS) for further arguments Conclusion: Combination of MapServer and PostgreSQL/PostGIS is our first choice. rasdaman candidate for inclusion e.g. advanced concepts Map- vs. GeoServer

28. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Map- vs. GeoServer From: http://www.slideshare.net/gatewaygeomatics.com/wms-performance-shootout Slide 28

29. HMA-FO ODA, February 2010 Contacts  EOX IT Services GmbH, Austria (Prime) stephan.meissl@eox.at christian.schiller@eox.at  G.I.M. Geographic Information Management nv/sa, Belgium steven.smolders@gim.be  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH, Germany p.baumann@jacobs-university.de  Spot Image SA, France philippe.merigot@spotimage.fr