RE: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki

["Moeller, John J." <john.moeller@xxxxxxx>]

Here are a couple of comments several relating to items Rick commented on also.

 

Diagram on Page 10 Line 245 should be redone - It seems confusing with the different lines and does not really identify components, shows the National Map but no other federal programs (however, I do not think we should try to get into listing all of the programs)

 

PRM - I found the PRM section to be a good section for giving the reader an understanding of what is expected in terms of geospatial.  It is a quick read.  I suggest that we keep it in total in the main document.  

 

Agree that the GIRM needs to be included.  It is a good piece of work and should be used as one of the main building blocks for SRM, TRM and DRM.

 

John

 

---

From: geo-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geo-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:29 PM
To: Geospatial CoP developing a profile for the FEA
Subject: RE: [geo-forum] Geospatial Profile Draft Version posted on Wiki

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

_________________________________________________________________
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)