1 / 18

ENVISION

ENVISION. developing a consensus on a ENVironmental Interoperable Spatial Information Open Network. Application example: Oil Spill Detection. Future users & applications. multiple providers ensure frequent coverage. Oil Slick DB. Oil Slick detection. Cost Guard. ESA: ERS/Envisat Data.

burt
Download Presentation

ENVISION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ENVISION developing a consensus on a ENVironmental Interoperable Spatial Information Open Network

  2. Application example: Oil Spill Detection Future users& applications multiple providers ensure frequent coverage Oil Slick DB Oil Slick detection Cost Guard ESA: ERS/Envisat Data Sea Surface Movement Model Radarsat: Radarsat data Seaside resorts NASDA: JERS data Marine National Parks Sea Currents Wind Data Wave Data Airborne Radar

  3. Value-Adding Company: The Non-Business Case • Production Infrastructure Costs > sales • Shipment/Production times too slow to offer timely information I/FA Local Data Provider Satellite EO Data Provider develop & maintain custom interface develop & maintain custom interface I/FE Local Data Provider Interface C Interface D Satellite EO Data Provider Airborne EO Data Provider Satellite EO Data Provider

  4. OpenGIS/Corba OpenGIS/WWW CIP IMS Required Data Provider Interfaces ?!? Data Provider Disaster Management Environment Oceanography Coastal Management Fishery Standard Interfaces Climatology Agriculture RAMSES Fire . . . Transport Geology Single Application Interfaces Application Sector Interfaces

  5. The Value Adding Chain EO/GIS Data Provider EO/GIS VAC VAR Value Adding Companies Value-added Application Reseller Inventory Browse Inventory Inventory Algorithms Order Order Order Services On-line Archive User Services Interoperable Data and Service Bus Production Services Information Raw Data Semi-Finished Semi-Finished Raw Extraction / Raw Product Product Acquisition Product Product Product Assembly Retrieval Generation Generation Retrieval Archive

  6. The Information Value Tower Application DataEnd Users High-Level Data End Users(User Application Centres) Low-Level Data End Users Interoperable Data & Services Bus

  7. € € € € € € The “Business” Scenario ApplicationEnd User Value-AddedApplicationReseller Value-Adding Companies Data Providers GIS/Map Data Satellite EO Data Airborne EO Data Local Data

  8. The Protocol/Standards Jungle ccsds OAIS GILS ceos/cintex Z IMS esa/jrc CIP GELOS nasa GEO CORBA fgdc DCOM XML ISO/TC 211 OpenGIS SQL

  9. Active Institutional Players at European ...

  10. … and world-wide level

  11. Infrastructures and Protocols

  12. Conclusion on the ‘State-of-the-Art’ • heterogeneous interoperability ‘islands’ • frequently only Web-based access possible (no defined protocol) • frequently Z39.50 as underlying information technology (obsolete?) • many infrastructures only provide ‘directory’ function • ‘ordering’ and ‘on-line access’ usually not supported • where supported, no consideration of commercial security and European Data Policy requirements

  13. Questions to be answered • Is a shared core between EO, GI and application domain possible ? • Who ‘drives’: EO, GI or applications ? • European or global ? • Commercial or ‘scientific’? • Single-Stop Shop or Service Federation ? • Light or Heavy Protocol ? • What standards and technologies shall we base on ? • What type of interfaces does a geospatial application require ? • What kind of services are required ?

  14. Interfaces and Services required in an operational scenario of a geospatial application • No Web I/F, but stable and defined ‘protocol’, to be used as API • Data Sources are configured by human intervention: is Directory service required in an operational scenario ? • Inventory and On-line Data Access most important Services • Ordering of future Data Acquisitions important for Planning • Additional Services • ‘Push’ Services • ‘Data Sniffing’ • Data Mining • Support for GRID infrastructure TBC

  15. Technology/Standards/Architecture • Easy-to-use modern mainstream technology: WWW, XML, Corba, (Z39.50 not ‘promotable’ to application builders) • ISO 19115 with OpenGIS WWW or CORBA profile as basis(most living initiatives have fed in, but application input is lacking) • ‘light’ standard based on WWW profile sufficient for application builders • heavy ‘academically complete’ solutions reserved to institutional data interchange • aim for a minimum common core based on a technology that allows simple domain-specific extensions (e.g. XML) TBC

  16. ‘Commercial’ Issues • Big commercial providers are sensitive to have a direct interface to their customers • No ‘single-stop-shop’, but federated architecture allowing direct access of customers to data providers • Commercial accounting requirements (e.g. non-repudiation based on digital signature) may require change of user management from userid/password to private/public key approach • introduction of private/public key approach with professional certificate providers is an opportunity to allow the users to have a unique user identification for all providers. • Some doubt if URL synta is sufficent for requests TBC

  17. European or Global ? • New global standards are not yet mature and fully suitable for Europe • ‘European standard’ approach eases consensus finding process(US agenda and speed might put the process at risk) • ‘European standard’ gives an advantage to the European Players within the European market • Satellite data are global • Some scientific problems require world-wide cooperation • ‘Global standard’ will ease export of application technology ‘Act European, Think Global’ or ‘Act Global, Think European’ ?

  18. Final Thoughts • Application builders are waking up and demand that the consensus-finding process starts (May 2000, 1st IST concertation meeting on environment applications) • Avoid building completely separated or ‘closed’ infrastructures for EO, GI and application sectors • Application Community and Data Providers need to be better involved • Keep present that the EO value adding chain produces GI applications • High-Value GI applications require continuous information acquisition(in-situ, airborne or satellite-based) • GMES to be considered

More Related