Attendees
Vince Allan, Indus Corporation
Pat Heinag, EPA
Wendy Blake Coleman, EPA
Tom McCarty
Mark Levine, USGS
Todd Bacastow, PennState
Kurt Buehler
Raj Singh, OGC
Doug Nebert, FGDC
Dennis Crow, USDA
Eliot Christian, USGS
Sandy Milliken, ESRI
Rick Tucker, Mitre
John Moeller, TASC
Brenda Smith, EPA
Mark Reichardt, OGC
Sam Bacharach, OGC
Other Business
John Moeller cites study and suggests preparation of white paper for use in October at workshop and committee that he and Carl are working on. WPs due 15 September. WBC questions how to do WP before and while the profile itself is being put together? MR suggests one to two page summary – less than a white paper – might be appropriate as communication item anyway. JM will cause invitation to be issued.
JM on October meeting: 5 panels: Data Collection and Acquisition, Tools for Analysis and Simulation, Interoperability, Training, Privacy and Security. Scope of committee: potential use of geospatial information in the planning for a catastrophe. Detailed information found at:
Action: OGC takes action to prepare summary for group review and editing.
Question raised if HHS has been communicating since they presented in the earlier meeting. No, but DC reports that CDC has been in contact to work on their geospatial capabilities.
EC: Public Private Workshop on Earth Observation and GEOSS to be held in October. Alliance for Earth Observations and Industry Advisory Council are sponsoring it. Includes FEA update. Posits we should get our work presented there too. No URL available yet, EC will pass to us as it becomes available.
Document Status
Introduction Section:
DN reports V0.2 is now posted to the website. Suggestion made to add words that make it more apparent that geo applies to lots of things that are not thought of geographic. DN invites all to send comments to the working groups. Is terminology a side bar, an appendix or do we put it in the introduction. BS likes the way the recreation profile does it up as a sidebar.
RT asks for early consideration to the visual of the cover –
DN to change diagram on page 9 and the text that introduces it.
SB recommends moving Audience / Objective / Scope up front
DN recommends all inclusive now and then reduce / park after it is all together.
DC asks if diagram has been officially accepted by anybody.
DC likes idea that geospatial is a binding factor
SB supports ‘binding’ as important concept and that it obligates us to get into actual details how to do that – a best practice that says do it, needs a specified way to do it or it is not going to get us there.
EC asks that the surrounding rings be Profiles, not three different names as it is now.
WBC says challenge is to hook LOBs, geo-dependent and know it, and the unwashed.
DC will take a stab at adding that.
Schedule: DN reviews on the wiki
BS: What is the plan for update and maintenance?
RT: Assumption is that profile will follow overall FEA plan and process.
EC: Does not OMB approval have to hang off of something they actually do?
Action: Identify post 30 September processes, timelines, etc. Same as other profile developers or separate? EC: Ask Dick Burke for guidance, or propose.
BRM / PRM:
WBC: Meeting on July 7 to discuss outline and approach. Decided a number of documents to post and read prior to doing final outline. Many now posted, still going through them, so have not gotten back together again. DN: How detailed? WBC: Unknows, but does not see it as highly detailed. KB: Maybe major part of BRM would be some description of practices used to date to help agencies identify what they are doing that is geospatial? BS: Gathering artifacts from individual programs to populate matrix they are doing – can merge questions from DHS and EPA, for instance, to see the same thing? WBC: More rigorous schedule to be set up soon and finalize an outline.
DN: Keeping wiki alive to capture lessons learned. Profile can be design-to, but pilot introduces build-to level of detail for that one use case.
SRM / TRM: Met several times, Raj,Tim,Kurt. Agreed to outlines, Raj has generated TRM list of standards and links to them. Delaying SRM until more detail in BRM outline, so they can take the discussion about process and extend it to SRM. Discuss process guidance (best practices where we can get them) follow with known list of known service components, known standards, known technologies (products?) (all as they relate to defining an Enterprise Architecture?) DN: need to go further into details of taxonomy to make them useful. KB: Not going to change the existing FEA taxonomy, as it will take too much to push that noodle. Will fit into FEA and show connections.
EC: Sees making more detailed connection at this level for geospatial and not worry too much about how it fits into FEA which puts geospaital in ‘Visualization’ and affords it no data or analysis connection – woefully wrong.
DRM: BS reports. How do we get nongeospatial people to know the work is there and can used? Actual data elements in an xml schema (FEA DRM) should match what has already been created and get our geospatial stuff into it? Aiming at three major tie points using how we have been doing it – geospatial is pretty mature here.
SM: Queries what the purpose of the DRM Work Shop next week is. Why does it not just point to the FGDC Framework work?