1. System Concept Evaluation Criteria FTT (FIG Tiger Team) (Federation Interoperability Group)

2. What is a Federation “System Concept”? ESIP cluster SWIL customer A common view of the Federation that all its participants agree to support

3. Common View Elements Online services –You can reach us this way Vocabularies and models –We speak this language User interfaces –We look like this

4. Common View Requirements and Criteria CAN requirements –What we must do FIG criteria –What we should do

5. CAN Interoperability Requirements Interoperability best resolved experimentally Federation must decide degree of integration and system interoperability Interoperability funds may be used as determined by the WP-Federation

6. CAN Interoperability Requirements cont’d For the purposes of proposing, include support for one of {V0, ECS, CIP, FGDC GEO, custom} System-Wide Interface Layers –custom: permits the ESIP to be searched and queried as if it is part of a larger whole Successful proposers will jointly determine and evolve these standards and interfaces

7. CAN Interoperability Requirements cont’d Public-domain products of this CAN [will be made] available on an Internet-accessible server WP-ESIPs will use the Global Change Master Directory to announce their products and services

8. FTT Interpretation It’s all up to us (the Federation) –Minimal interop requirements GCMD FGDC –But, we must do something Pressures to do it soon –Fiscal: spend it or lose it –Political: What are you guys doing? –Technical: field-test various options

9. FTT Interpretation cont’d max(!/$) is catalog interoperability Light touch –Just metadata, not data Satisfies basic requirements –GCMD –FGDC Satisfies “query larger whole” almost-a-requirement Best chance to do something quickly –Many existing or pending alternatives

10. Criteria vs. Requirements Requirements –“Thou shalt” Must fulfill, else not acceptable Criteria –“Tell us” Must explain how proposed solution addresses

11. Responding to Criteria Qualitative –How does candidate system address the criterion? Quantitive –Is there a minimum level of compliance with the criterion? Does the candidate system meet it? Work in progress –Your feedback is crucial

12. Overall Criteria Allow single, multiple, or composite solutions –Multiple: must be equivalent All the ESIPs, all the metadata –Composite: should be seamless “functionally equivalent”

13. Overall Criteria cont’d Security and access control –Expose subsets of catalog information Use of / compliance with any relevant standards Discovery and description of services as well as data products

14. Overall Criteria cont’d Risks –Maturity –Acceptance By users By providers –Support –Technological change Continuing support for obsolete technologies Migration to newer technologies

15. Catalog Interoperability Criteria Discovery / search Browse Logical data model User interface Local extensibility Technology Scalability / Bottlenecks Costs Compatibility

16. Discovery and Search Specificity –Collection –Granule Retrieval capabilities –Ranking –Relevance –extent of search compliance Search capabilities –Geospatial “bounding-box” –including Z –“Fielded search” –Free text –Temporal –Common vs. local attributes

17. Browse Specificity –By collection E.g. coverage summaries –By granule Options –Static Fixed parameters –On-demand User-specified parameters

18. Logical Data Model Vocabularies –Valids / Domains –Use applicable standards Inter-attribute relationships –Parent-child –Thesauri –Other TBD

19. User Interface Implementation –Web browser –Other clients Java app Z39.50 Internet search engines … Extensibility –APIs Open & complete –Encodings XML …

20. Local Extensibility Attributes Vocabularies Search capabilities Retrieval capabilities Data access Provide access to local extensions

21. Technology Portability –Platform dependencies Implementation –Language –Special communication requirements Persistent connections Non-standard ports and/or protocols Interactions with firewalls

22. Scalability / Bottlenecks Number of providers Number of users Volume of data Performance –Rates –Latencies Differential degradation of capabilities Fault tolerance

23. Costs Distribution of costs –Providers Minimal vs optional –Federation What happens to Type 3s? “plug-in” –Purchase –Construction –Configuration Administration and maintenance

24. Compatibility Strategy for accommodating existing systems/clusters/protocols –GCMD –V0 –Z39.50 –…

25. Appendix Interoperability Language from the WP-ESIP CAN

26. CAN Requirements (from the Book of Martha) NASA concluded that the issues of federation governance and interoperability would be best resolved experimentally using a WP-Federation.

27. BoM cont’d …it is the WP-Federation that must decide upon a consensus approach to the organizational interfaces, degree of integration and system interoperability.

28. BoM cont’d The WP-ESIPs, acting for the WP-Federation, will be expected to… submit a proposal to NASA early in the first year of performance to… fund interoperability activities… These funds may be used for incremental developments needed to achieve the level of interoperability and/or data interuse as determined by the WP-Federation and their maintenance, and system-wide metrics collection and reporting.

29. BoM cont’d For the purposes of proposing to be a WP- ESIP, proposers are instructed to include in their implementation plans support for one of the following System-Wide Interface Layer (SWIL) interoperability options [custom, V0, ECS, CIP, FGDC GEO]… –[custom:] A selection from emerging set of technologies that permit the ESIP to be automatically searched and queried from remote clients as if it is part of a larger whole (i.e., a "Federation").

30. BoM cont’d Proposals will be evaluated for compliance with this requirement…, but following selection, successful WP- ESIP proposers will work with other members of the Working Prototype Federation to jointly determine and evolve these standards and interfaces.

31. BoM cont’d data products and algorithms made available by all WP-ESIPs… must meet all U.S. Government- mandated standards. Presently these comprise applicable Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards

32. BoM cont’d To facilitate the dissemination of any public-domain products of this CAN, the WP-ESIPs will make them available on an Internet-accessible server… the WP-ESIPs will use the Global Change Master Directory and/or the Advertising Service provided by EOSDIS… to announce the availability of their products and services.