------------------------------------------------------------------------




                   _____   __________________  ____  ____
                  /  _/ | / /_  __/ ____/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \
                  / //  |/ / / / / __/ / /_/ / / / / /_/ /
                _/ // /|  / / / / /___/ _, _/ /_/ / ____/
               /___/_/ |_/ /_/ /_____/_/ |_|\____/_/

                   _   __                  __     __  __
                  / | / /__ _      _______/ /__  / /_/ /____  _____
                 /  |/ / _ \ | /| / / ___/ / _ \/ __/ __/ _ \/ ___/
                / /|  /  __/ |/ |/ (__  ) /  __/ /_/ /_/  __/ /
               /_/ |_/\___/|__/|__/____/_/\___/\__/\__/\___/_/
*************************************************************************
Number 15     ***         INTEROP NEWSLETTER      ***      April 2003
*************************************************************************

In This Issue:
--------------
I.     Preparations for Next CEOS meeting in Toulouse, France
            (See information at http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/spring2003.html)

II.    A Short History of the DIF
          - by G. Major and L. Olsen

III.   Participation in the E-Government Geospatial One Stop Initiative
            Requires Additional "Project" Information
            - by T. Stevens

IV.    Science User Working Group Report
            - by A. Buffam (CCRS)

V.     GCMD Ensures Accessibility for All
            - by J. Pollack and S. Leicester

VI.    ISO 19115 Scheduled to Become International Standard by Early Summer
            - by C. Solomon and L. Czaran

VII.   New Elements for Model Output Data Sets Proposed for DIF
            - by G. Major

VIII.  The Challenges of IDN Software Testing
             - by K. Moreland

IX.    Minutes from CEOS meeting in Alexandria, VA

X.     Tentative Agenda for Upcoming May Meeting
             - by L. Olsen and D. Kendig

XI.    Issues - Discussion (Refer to Interop)

*************************************************************************

I.   Preparations for Next CEOS meeting in Toulouse, France - May 12-16
         by - Lola Olsen and Dave Kendig

Preparations are being made by the International Directory Network (IDN)
participants for the next CEOS meetings in Toulouse, France.  The IDN
session is scheduled for the afternoon of Wednesday, May 14th.  See proposed
agenda in Section X of this Newsletter.  All participating node representatives
should prepare a status report.
See http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/spring2003.html

**************************************************************************

II.  A Short History of the DIF
- by Gene Major and Lola Olsen

Before metadata became a ubiquitous buzzword, a descriptive and
standardized format for exchanging information about scientific data
sets was conceived and implemented.  The Directory Interchange Format,
the DIF, was the product of an Earth Science and Applications Data
Systems Workshop (ESADS) held February 24-26, 1987 on catalog
interoperability (CI). The workshop recommended that a "...first step
towards data system interoperability, Catalog Interoperability (CI),
the ability to find information about data held at other sites...", be made.

In the summer of 1987, the Catalog Interoperability Working Group
(consisting of several U.S. Federal and international agencies) defined
the type of information and level of detail that would be contained by
the DIF. The DIF structure was "frozen" on September 18, 1987, and the
population of NASA's Master Directory (NMD) prototype commenced.  By
December 1987, over 100 DIF entries were available in the prototype NMD
database.  After several demonstrations, workshops, and feedback from
the scientific community, the Directory Interchange Format (DIF) was
formally approved and adopted by a CI science advisory group at a CI
workshop in 1988.

In 1989, the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Data
Working Group (DWG) began attending the CI Workshop meetings and
provided valuable feedback on the DIF structure. The CEOS International
Directory Network (IDN) was soon established under the auspices of the
CEOS Working Group on Data, through the Catalog Subgroup, to foster the
exchange of information among international agencies. The first release
of the IDN was named the Prototype International Directory (PID) in
1990.  [Actual DIF exchange procedures were agreed on by February 1991.]

In 1990, the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global
Change (IWGDMGC) adopted the directory as a prototype to facilitate
global change research - in response to the challenge by the Earth
System Science Committee (ESSC). Thereafter, the NMD was renamed the
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) for its Earth sciences applications.

The DIF has enjoyed almost 16 years of success. The DIF structure has
been flexible enough to evolve with growing metadata requirements,
especially for the geospatial disciplines.  In the U.S., the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) Circular A-16 for the improved
coordination of spatial data among federal agencies led to the
establishment of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the
FGDC Clearinghouse. The GCMD serves as NASA's FGDC Clearinghouse node
for geospatial metadata.  Elements of the Content Standard for Digital
Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) were incorporated in the DIF in 1994.

In the late 1990s, the geospatial community began work towards the
development of an international standard for geospatial metadata. The
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Technical Committee's
[(TC)211] Metadata Standard 19115 (previously known as 15046-15) (see:
http://www.isotc211.org/) sought to provide "a consistent suite of
geographic information schemata that allows geographic information to be
integrated with information technology. The goal of this work item is to
produce a schema for geographic information metadata."

The anticipated adoption of the ISO 19115/TC211 geospatial metadata
standard is set for June 2003.  Required elements and appropriate
modifications are scheduled - upon approval of the CEOS IDN
Interoperability group to be incorporated into the DIF to achieve full
ISO compatibility. See Section VI for more details.

The DIF does not compete with other metadata standards.  It is simply the
"container" for the metadata elements that are maintained in the IDN
database, where validation for mandatory fields, keywords, personnel, etc.
takes place.


**************************************************************************

III.  Participation in the E-Government Geospatial One-Stop Initiative
         Requires Additional Project Information
         - by Tyler Stevens

Geospatial One-Stop is a U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) sponsored initiative with a goal to promote and develop
improved access to geographic information throughout local, state and
federal governments.  The initiative encourages increased sharing and
access to data at all levels of government. The implementation of
Geospatial One Stop will involve an online, interactive metadata
catalog to all geospatial data at all government levels. This catalog
will consist of current data holdings and future projected missions.

NASA, along with other organizations, is required to document future
projects based on guidelines given from the Geospatial One-Stop
Guidelines Document. This document can be viewed at
http://www.geo-one-stop.gov/docs/GOS2_3Guidance1.1.22.03.htm.

In response to this E-Government initiative, the GCMD is developing an
enhanced "project" information framework. Currently the directory
framework holds only summary information. New information that will be
required for projects over $1 million will consist of
Project_Organization, Project_Timeframe, ISO_Topic_Category, Scale,
Purpose, and Project_Investment. Through Geospatial One-Stop, NASA
and other participating organizations will provide new project
metadata, documenting all projects costing over $1 million.

In order to provide this information to users, the directory's staff
have developed an enhanced Project metadata authoring tool to support
the new framework.  This new authoring tool will allow users to enter
project metadata and populate the database. A future Project portal is
also being planned.  This portal will allow agencies to search and share
their project information through Geospatial One-Stop.

************************************************************************

IV.  Science User Working Group Report
       - By Andrea Buffam (CCRS)

The Global Change Master Directory Science Users' Working Group (GCMD UWG)
for the American Coordinating Node of the International Directory Network
(IDN) met May 1-2, 2002 at Goddard Space Flight Center's Global Change Data
Center.

UWG Committee members have been meeting annually with the GCMD project team
since 1994.  Over the past 3 years, I have been pleased to be invited to
contribute as the CEOS Access Subgroup/Canadian IDN Node Representative.
This is a very productive and worthwhile meeting. A final report was
prepared to summarize key recommendations by the UWG.

The meeting began with a review of the scientific, technical and operational
progress on stated ambitions and recommendations of the past year.  The GCMD
team members presented: the accomplishments of monthly DIF population
and usage; efforts to improve their scientific data management with better
tools, portal integration, opportunities to increase site visibility,
reworking the  site design to improve navigation, and outlining the
contributions of their  gained expertise and system development to the
international community.

The UWG provided guidance on the 2002-2003 work plan, assistance in
assessing the user and data provider trends for GCMD constituents, and help
defining directions and setting goals.  Their multidisciplinary expertise
provided ongoing information concerning new data sets, new resources to
information sources, technological innovations, and other items of interest
to the GCMD disciplinary coordinators.

The key recommendations from the report fall within six primary categories
and are summarized below.  The final report will be available through the
CEOS IDN website at http://idn.ceos.org/

1.  Increasing the visibility of the directory.  "As in previous meetings,
the User Working Group (UWG) identified the need to continue and expand
efforts to increase the visibility of the directory within the scientific
research community."

2.  Standards for URL Inclusion.  "The UWG encourages the directory to once
again take the lead by developing recommendations for 'Related_URLs'".

3.  Portals and mini-portals.  "The UWG encourages the GCMD to continue
developing portals and urges the GCMD to use or develop tools that make
setting up, customizing and managing portals as easy as possible."

4.  Improving Access to Non-DIF Content.  "The UWG recommends that the
directory increase visibility of the non-DIF content by highlighting the
importance of key options within the site map on the home page."

5.  Sharing Software.  "The UWG recommends that the directory develop
policies regarding the sharing of source code and application program
interfaces (APIs)."

6. Services: The UWG believes that the development of the Earth Science
Tools, Analytical Resources (ESTARS) will be advanced "by focusing initial
efforts on a high priority community. Given the clear desires of the NASA
research community for a services directory, it makes the most sense to
focus on meeting their needs."

The committee was chaired by Dr. John Porter, Ecologist, University of
Virginia.  Other members included Dr. Benno Blumenthal, Oceanographer from
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University; Dr. Wendell Brown,
Oceanographer, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, Dr. Jonathan Callahan,
Chemist NOAA/PMEL/University of Washington; Dr. Elissa Levine (Project
Scientist), Soil Scientist Biospheric Sciences Branch, NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Center, Dr. Hubert Staudigel, University of California, Davis; Dr.
Martin Ruzek, Universities Space Research Association, and Ms. Andrea
Buffam, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing.

Once again, the UWG members were very impressed with the accomplishments of
this project team led by Lola Olsen.  Their efforts continue to provide
leadership in data identification and dissemination, as well as systems
development for the Earth sciences community and CEOS IDN network.

The next UWG meeting will be scheduled for late summer.

************************************************************************

V.  GCMD Ensures Accessibility for All
         - by Janine Pollack and Stephanie Leicester

The American Coordinating Node of the CEOS IDN has recently
undertaken the task of making its Web site compliant with the
Technical Standards of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. More
commonly known as the accessibility guidelines, these standards
establish requirements for any electronic and information technology
developed, maintained, or used by the US Federal government.  The
requirements specify that these technologies be accessible to people
with disabilities, including employees and members of the public.

To meet these goals of accessibility, an information
technology system must be capable of operating in a variety of ways
and not rely on a single sense or ability of the user.  For example, a
system that provides output solely through a visual format may not be
accessible to people with visual impairments, and therefore would not
meet 508 requirements.  For Web sites to be compatible with the
accessibility guidelines, authors must follow some general rules
related to certain elements used to construct the site.

Every non-text element (image, script, frame, sound, etc.)
must have a corresponding text equivalent (tags for alt, noscript,
noframes, etc.).  As an example, every image contained on a Web page
must have a text equivalent that can be read by the screen readers of
visually impaired visitors.  This allows a non-sighted user the same
experience as a sighted one.

Web pages must be designed such that all information conveyed
with color is also available without color, via context or markup.
Therefore, Web page authors cannot simply use a red font to stress the
importance of a particular portion of text.

Forms designed to be completed on-line must allow people using
assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and
functionality required for completion and submission of the form,
including all directions and cues.  Each form element must have a
corresponding "label" element that accurately describes the field and
the type of information expected for completion.

To test compliance with these standards, the American Coordinating
Node uses the Bobby software tool
(http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp).  Bobby was
developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST,
http://www.cast.org/) to help discover barriers to accessibility and
subsequently remove those barriers by encouraging compliance with the
guidelines.

The directory's Web site is currently compliant with Section
508. However, as current pages are updated and new pages are
introduced, regular checks will be performed to ensure compliance is
maintained.

**************************************************************************

VI.  ISO 19115 Scheduled to Become International Standard by Early Summer
           - by Cheryl Solomon and Lorant Czaran

The Final Draft International ISO 19115/TC211 Geographic
Information/Geomatics (http://www.isotc211.org) Standard (FDIS) was
released in January, 2003. After the FDIS was released it went to the
Central Secretariat, which is responsible for collecting votes on the
FDIS from all members so that it can be ratified as an ISO standard.
The ratification of ISO 19115 as a standard is expected in May and at
the latest in June, 2003. The TC211 Metadata Editing Committee will
also be meeting in Thun, Switzerland in May 2003 to discuss adding
some technical amendments to ISO 19115.  The technical amendments will
include Metadata Part II, Imagery, as well as the implementation of
ISO 19115 via an XML schema.

ISO 19115/TC211 Geographic Information/Geomatics (http://www.isotc211.org)
does not mandate how one implements metadata collection or how one maintains
the database.  It does provide guidance on the information content
and organization for metadata, including conditionality, obligation
(mandatory/conditional/optional), and repeatability.  The Directory
Interchange Format (DIF) is a container for the ISO metadata content.

To be compliant with ISO 19115, the CEOS IDN will be issuing a proposal
for the addition and modification of the following fields:


1. ISO TOPIC CATEGORY
---------------------
Add the ISO Topic Category field, which will contain the valids in the
ISO 19115 - Geographic Information Metadata Topic Category Code List
which is a mandatory field.  The Topic Category Code is a high-level
geographic data thematic classification to assist in the grouping and
search of available geographic data sets.  It is understood that there
are overlaps between general categories, and the user is encouraged to
select those which are most appropriate.  For all IDN users, the current
IDN keywords will automatically be translated to appropriate ISO Topic
Categories.  Authors may want to validate their entries for these
translations.

2. Metadata Name and Version
----------------------------

Add a Group called "Metadata Name and Version containing the following
fields which are core fields within ISO:

Metadata Standard Name
-----------------------
- Metadata Standard Name is the name of the metadata standard name
including profile.

Metadata Standard Version
-------------------------

- Metadata Standard Version is the version of the metadata
standard in which the metadata was originally created

3. ADDRESS
----------
Modify the current DIF address field to the following ISO address field:

- deliveryPoint
- city
- administrativeArea
- postalCode
- country

- These fields can be mapped to:
deliveryPoint = Address
city = City
administrativeArea = Province/State
postalCode = Postal_Code
country = Country

4. NAME
-------
Change the current DIF name fields to one field "Contact Name".  This
would replace the current DIFs fields First_Name, Middle_Name and
Last_Name. Contact_Name is equivalent to two ISO fields: Individual Name
and Organization Name.

In addition, several existing DIF fields are also core ISO 19115 fields.
These core ISO 19115 fields may be mandatory (M), conditional (C), or
optional (O) and are highly recommended (although not all are mandatory).
It is recommended that these existing DIF fields become mandatory:

Within the Data_Set_Citation group:
- Dataset_Creator (O)
- Dataset_Release_Date (M)

Within the Personnel group:
- Role: DIF Author (M)

Dataset_Language (M)

DIF_Creation_Date (M)

Please be vigilant for the forthcoming Interop proposal on DIF compliance
with ISO 19115.

The additions and modifications noted will thus bring the DIF into
compliance with the ISO 19115 standard and allow complete interoperability.



**************************************************************************

VII.  New Elements for Model Output Data Sets Proposed for DIF
           - by Gene Major

The importance of model output data for climate change research
continues to grow. A portal of model output data sets (DIFs) was
implemented in response to the modeling community's requests. The
Model Output Data portal (http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Data/portals/models/)
provides access to over 500 model output descriptions. The IDN's
services portal also provides access to 131 descriptions of the models
themselves.

To illustrate the importance of model output data sets, Anne-Sophie
Archambeau of the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL) Data Center in
Paris, France proposed an addition to the DIF through the CEOS IDN
Interop listserv on November 21, 2002 to handle model information. The
complete proposal can be be viewed at:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/User/forum/past_entries/2002/000107.html

The proposal calls for the addition of a Numerical_Experiment Group
consisting of 13 elements describing the model, its configuration, and
conditions that produced the model output data set being described in
the DIF. Anne-Sophie Archambeau provided detailed definitions of the
fields and examples of usage.

Taco Bruin, representing the Joint Committee on Antarctic Data
Management (JCADM) community responded to the Interop proposal on
December 18, 2002
(http://gcmd.nasa.gov/User/forum/past_entries/2002/000108.html)
and concluded that the addition of a new field may not be necessary
and that the current DIF fields could be used to adequately cover the
necessary information. Mr. Bruin also pointed out that the actual
model can be described by a SERF (IDN services description).

On March 11, 2003, Anne-Sophie Archambeau responded
(http://gcmd.nasa.gov/pipermail/interop/2003-March/000001.html)
to Taco Bruin's concerns emphasizing that the same model can be
configured differently for different model runs and subsequent model
output data sets can be quite different depending on the model
conditions. The SERF description of the model itself would not cover
particular instances of model output using the same model but
configured differently. Researchers would need to know what the model
conditions were to produce the data set in addition to the model
itself.

Martin Ruzek of the USRA Earth System Science Education Program
responded on March 12, 2003
(http://gcmd.nasa.gov/pipermail/interop/2003-March/000002.html)
acknowledging that the addition of the field would be a good idea, but
asks if the fields are generic enough to cover a wide variety of model
output. Mr. Ruzek poses some questions as to the relationship between
SERF and DIF when it comes to models and model output data. He
provides an alternative strategy by referring the user to the model
originator for details and further asks: "What is the IDN user
expecting when he/she searches for model output?" He asks: "Are users
expecting to see a detailed list of model parameters or simply the
knowledge that a numerical experiment has been conducted, that there
is a link to the model described by the SERF, and the information to
contact the model originator".  Mr. Ruzek also asks how quickly a
field can be added, its impact on users, and priorities for ISO and
other IDN requirements.

This proposal will take priority after the discussion and voting for
ISO compliance have been completed. (See Section VI of this Mewsletter).


**************************************************************************

VIII. The Challenges of IDN Software Testing
        - by Kathleen Moreland

Testing is essential in the software development process but is often
neglected.  Generally, software developers find writing code more
satisfying than testing it. We believe that if code is well tested, it
will save time and headaches in the long run.

Software testing plans are as broad as the nature of the software
being developed and its intended use.  In the past few months, test
plans have been developed for the MD8 Operations software client, the
LDA (Local Database Agent) and the CEOS/IDN Web page.  The IDN science
coordinators have assisted in testing all of the major components of the
MD8 software on various platforms (e.g. Linux and Windows).  This has
been a valuable learning experience for all who have participated.

Some lessons learned are:

*Test engineer needs to have thorough knowledge of the software before
well designed test plans can be written.

*Plans need to be written clearly so testers can easily follow the steps
to complete testing.

*Testing must be performed on common platforms, (e.g. Linux and Windows)
and various browsers (and versions) such as Netscape, Internet Explorer,
etc.

*Production machines should not be used for testing.  A development
machine that has the latest versions of the code and all components
installed should be set aside for all testing.

*A reliable and easy-to-use bug tracking software package is needed to
report bugs and enhancements.  The IDN Task team uses an Open Source
package, Bugzilla, available at http://bugzilla.org

*Software testers need to be able to recreate all bugs before reporting
them as "true bugs" through the software tracking package.  Testers need
to clearly state all steps involved in discovering the bug.  General
rule of thumb: if testers can't recreate the bug, software developers
usually can't either.

*Software testers should be encouraged to suggest enhancements to the
software they are testing.

*IDN task members are moving towards automating the testing process.
This will make it easier and more efficient to perform end-to-end
software testing.

***************************************************************************

IX. Minutes from CEOS meeting in Alexandria, VA, September 12, 2002.

You may view the minutes from the last meeting at:
http://idn.ceos.org/IDN/Meetings/2002_09_Alexandria/minutes.html


[Several new CEOS-related portals were created since the last meeting:

IDN members created a customized portal to water-related data sets
for the World Water Forum held in Japan on March 16 - 23rd 2003
(http://www.worldwaterforum.org/). The WWF portal keyword search was
implemented by restricting the IDN content to the following TOPICs:
CRYOSPHERE, HYDROSPHERE, OCEANS, and to the variables, ATMOSPHERE >
PRECIPITATION and ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR.

IDN members also created a United Nations portal, available at
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Data/portals/un/ for customized access to UN
environmental data sets. The UN portal content consists of data set
descriptions from just UN organizations such as the United Nations
Environmental Programme/Global Resources Information Database
(UNEP/GRID), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). Over 700 descriptions
of UN data sets are available through the portal.]

See http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Data/portals to see other portals.

***************************************************************************

X.  Tenative Agenda for CEOS IDN Task Team
      Wednesday, May 14, 2003

                            Agenda for CEOS IDN Task Team
                                  May 14, 2003

A.  (5 min)  Review of Minutes

B.  (20 min) Status at the American Coordinating Node
	           1. Metrics for content and usage
		   2. Ongoing Activities
		   3. New Portals

C.  (30 min) IDN Node Reports

                 Please include in these reports, sections on:
	           1. Metrics
		      i. Number of DIFs contributed
		      ii. Usage Statistics
		   2. Status of Node Software
		   3. Update Method/Frequency
		   4. IDN Node Pages
		   5. Advertising

D.  (5 min)  Status of ISO 19115 as it relates to the IDN
	        - Lorant Czaran

E.  DIF Proposals
        (15 min)       1. ISO Modifications
		       i. ISO Keywords
		      ii. personnel
        (15 min)	   2. Dataset Resolution
        (15 min)    3. Modifications to DIF for model output data


F.  (5 min) Enhancing Project Records (Geospatial One-Stop)

G.  (10 Min) MD8 Update (Viktor Pusztai, Attila Szucs, and Dave Kendig)
	                 UNEP-GRID/Budapest, IDN Task Team
		   - PostgreSQL DB trials

H.  (10 min) XML DocBuilder Tool
		   - Update/Demo

I.  (5 min)  MD9
		   1. Update on what has been done
		        i. Project enhancements
		       ii. ISO Database Schema Revisions
		      iii. Lucene
		   2. Schedule through September


**************************************************************************************

XI. Issues - Discussion

For more information or questions about this Newsletter or the agenda 
for the upcoming
meeting, please contact Lola Olsen, 
(Lola.M.Olsen at nasa.gov http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/mailman/listinfo/interop) IDN Task Team lead.

**************************************************************************************