1. OGC and ESIP Discovery or Can’t we all just get along?? Christopher Lynnes

2. The Players ESIP Discovery Cluster – Informal working group of server and client developers Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) – Formal, addresses many communities – Draft documents available only to OGC partners Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) – Leading OpenSearch spec. development in OGC GENESI-DR – 13 Orgs with Earth Observation repositories – Implementing and promoting OpenSearch for Earth Observations along OSGeo lines

3. Documents ESIP – DCP-1: Codifies basic response. Status=approved – DCP-2: Proposed extension of rel field to codify OPeNDAP links. Status = withdrawn – DCP-3: Rework of DCP-1 and DCP-2. Reverts to IANA standards for rel, but adds new attributes to codify specific links. Status=under debate OGC – OpenSearch Geospatial Extensions Draft Implementation Standard Version 0.0.1 available, but superseded Version 0.0.2 moving toward approval, but not available

4. Key Similarities between OGC and ESIP Discovery Approaches Basis in OpenSearch Emphasis on Atom response format Incorporation of geospatial query element Incorporation of geospatial response element Incorporation of temporal query element Recursive search supported – But not called out as such in OGC spec

5. Key Differences in Atom Response FeatureESIP ApproachOGC Approach TimeRepurpose temporal extension to OpenSearch: 2011-01- 01 2011-01-02 Dublin core: 2011-01-01/2011-01-02 Pagingno recommendationrecommended Link identification ESIP namespace...IANA-based, except OGC namespace for OGC services

6. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?)

7. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?) Approach: ESIP-specific value for rel attribute: Data: OPeNDAP:

8. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?) Approach: Define new ESIP-specific value for rel attribute: Data: OPeNDAP:

9. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?) Approach: Return to IANA rel + Add ESIP-specific attributes Data: OPeNDAP: <link href="http://host.com/opendap/file.hdf.nc” rel=“enclosure” esip:subrel=“http://esipfed.org/ns/discovery/1.1/data# esip:serviceProtocol=“http://xml.opendap.org/ns/DAP/3.3#” type="application/x-netcdf" />

10. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?) Approach: Return to IANA rel + extend type Data: OPeNDAP:

11. Link Identification DCP-1 (to be deprecated) DCP-2 (withdrawn) DCP-3 (under debate) mime-type approach (new! and improved?) Approach: Return to IANA rel + Add ESIP-specific attributes + extend type Data: OPeNDAP: <link href="http://host.com/opendap/file.hdf.nc” rel=“enclosure” esip:subrel=“http://esipfed.org/ns/discovery/1.1/data# esip:serviceProtocol=“http://xml.opendap.org/ns/DAP/3.3#” type="application/opendap+x-netcdf" />

12. Decisions, Decisions 1.Change time in Atom response to use Dublin Core? 2.Add ESIP-Specific attributes to ? 3.Extend mime-type to indicate service? 4.Work more directly with OGC? N.B.: their constituency is a superset of our constituency, BUT their tools are a subset of our tools 5.Work more directly with OS Geo or GENESI- DR?