To: | "Geospatial CoP developing a profile for the FEA" <geo-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | |
From: | "Tucker, Rick" <rwtucker@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:29:17 -0400 |
Message-id: | <D6E30024B3074048AC06450F88E4E42943C53A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Attached are my line-by-line comments on the draft Geospatial Profile v0.1 of 13 Sep 2005, and here in this email are my high-level comments: 0. Cover needs a great geospatial operational screen image that is self-evident. 1. Intro is just to gain interest. It is fine in general but needs more geospatial examples (visualization/map images) 2. Use case scenario still needs to be identified up front and integrated throughout the reference model sections, with attractive graphics. This is a major gap. 2. PRM is too detailed. Right now it suddenly stops
the willing reader of the Geospatial Profile who will tune out. The info
is fine, but is too detailed for the main message. Need to know if the
maturity model has really been exercised or is just a concept right now.
In any case, move the details of the maturity model to an appendix or to an FEA
geospatial knowledgebase web site.
3. BRM is at a good level of detail. I like the
Geospatial Business Language, which is fine in the appendix (which I did not
review line-by-line).
4. SRM in the main document section is too generic
and quotes too much from other documents. That info may be informative but
should be relegated to appendices, or just citations to the documents.
More importantly, the recommended expansions of the SRM to include additional
Geospatial Service Components should definitely be in the main front-section
document rather than in appendices.
5. The TRM is pretty good... though there may be
some missing areas.
6. The FGDC/OGC Geospatial Interoperability
Reference Model is notably absent from the profile. This goes across the
SRM, TRM, and DRM, at least.
7. The DRM is OK but can't
go further until we see what the DRM Team produces that is validated and
authorized by OMB (and there is quite a bit of politics here). Most of the
standards should be in the TRM.
8. We haven't addressed
the other profiles (which is okay right now)... but the Records Management
Profile is basically complete, so we'll have to address that. Security
& Privacy will be piloted in the coming months but probably not widely
distributed for comment in the near term. We at least need to mention them
as a future extension area.
9. All in all, I think this
is in very good shape given the short time frame and the collaborative writing
efforts involved. Bravo!
10. An independent review of this before we send it
to the AIC or FGDC would be wise. Any suggestions? John
Sullivan? Suzanne Acar? Others?
-
Rick
-----Original Message----- From: geo-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geo-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Nebert Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:00 PM To: GEO EA Working Group Subject: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki All: We have combined the various parts of the FEA Geospatial Profile in to a single, combined draft for your comment. It has been posted at the Wiki on the page <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CurrentGeospatialProfileDraft>. Please visit that page to obtain the draft and to learn how to comment. The subgroups will continue to work on the draft during the review process, so please be aware of the TODO list provided in the document as you comment. Feel free to comment on any aspect, however, comments are due on September 23, 2005. Please note that this will not be the last time for review and comment, rather a larger comment round will proceed after the end of September as we reach out to a much larger community for review. I want to thank all of the active participants in the GEA CoP WG and the four subgroups for their effort in producing this draft! Thanks and Best Regards, Doug -- Douglas D. Nebert Geospatial Data Clearinghouse Coordinator, Information Architect FGDC/GSDI Secretariat Phone: +1 703 648 4151 Fax: +1 703 648-5755 _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/geo-forum/ To Post: mailto:geo-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/geo-forum/ Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/geocop/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GeoSpatialCommunityofPractice
GeoProfile 0.1 - comments - Tucker - v0.2.doc _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/geo-forum/ To Post: mailto:geo-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/geo-forum/ Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/geocop/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GeoSpatialCommunityofPractice (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [geo-forum] Resubmission of Barrett's comments, James G Barrett |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki, Sam A. Bacharach |
Previous by Thread: | [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki, Doug Nebert |
Next by Thread: | RE: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki, Sam A. Bacharach |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |