Geospatial Architecture Workgroup

Transcription

1 Geospatial Architecture Workgroup A subgroup of the MetroGIS Technical Leadership Workgroup & MnGeo Standards Committee Thursday, February 4, 2010 Meeting Summary 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Centennial Office Building, Room Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN Welcome, Introductions, Note Taker Members Present: Chris Cialek, Jessica Deegan, Jessica Fendos, Josh Gumm, Mark Kotz, Chris Pouliot, Hal Watson Members Absent: Bob Basques, Tim Loesch, Dan Ross, Charley McCarty, Lesley Kadish, Steve Lime, Nancy Read, Paul Weinberger Guests Present: Jim Dickerson, Mark Heggestad, Susanne Maeder, Nancy Rader Note Taker: Jessica Fendos 2. Approve Agenda Agenda approved with an insert of a discussion topic on a GIS/LIS article after item 8 on the agenda. 3. Approve Meeting Summary from January 7 Approved with no changes 4. Project Management Support from the Met. Council Kotz reported that the Met. Council is implementing a structured project management framework for its IT systems. The goal of Heggestad s presence today is to use this opportunity to test and evaluate how MetroGIS/MnGeo collaborative projects might fit in and benefit from this project management framework. Heggestad stated Rick Gelbmann and Randy Johnson both contacted him for the possibility to integrate and coordinate project agendas and meetings through a structured project management process. He considers this portal project a good example for the project management model with a focus not so much on the software part of it but the process of project development. 5. Review Work Plan and Portal/Commons Functions 1

2 Kotz cited the mission of this workgroup, major next steps and functions of the proposed Minnesota Geospatial Portal listed on page 2-3 of the agenda. Four subgroups were formulated during the last meeting. Progress reports for each subgroup can be found under item State Government Geospatial Advisory Council and Shared Services Directory Kotz asked anyone who had been at the last State Government Advisory Council to report on anything relevant to the GAW. It was reported that time only allowed a brief discussion on the state workgroups at that meeting. Nancy Rader stated that currently only the ELA workgroup is officially formed and that David Arbeit presented a few ideas on potential workgroups at the previous council meeting after which Fred Logman created a list of eight proposed workgroups for the last meeting. The one relevant proposed workgoup is Shared Services Directory Workgroup with specific reference to coordination with MetroGIS. 7. Subgroup Reports a. A1- Portal Products Recommendation Gumm asked Mark K. to present findings concluded by this subgroup by researching other portals. Only two products claimed to be prominent from our research, Kotz concluded ESRI and an open source solution. This subgroup discussed these solutions and decided to propose ESRI Geoportal Extension for the test bed implementation of this project because it offers the most desired functionality, is covered by existing ESRI ArcGIS Server license without additional fees, and is used by major portal sites such as the GeoData.gov. Kotz encouraged the GAW to discuss and vote on the subgroup s recommendations with the goal to obtain an approval from MnGeo to then agree to host the test implementation. Cialek considered this a good idea and also recommended that we insert test bed in bullet #2 to state That the test bed implementation be hosted at MnGeo. He inquired about the time frame for this project that will help sideboard ideas and expectations. Watson pointed out that MnDOT has an existing geoportal implementation and would be nice to examine their model. Dickerson expressed concern that the current work plan serves only as recommendations but lacks definitions on work involved at MnGeo. Kotz and Cialek both expressed the wish to formulate the preliminary agreement first before drafting a detailed work plan specifying concepts, roles, and responsibilities. Cialek inquired whose responsibility it is to create the work plan. Kotz stated that it is the responsibility of the GAW to do that and volunteered to begin by preparing a draft charter for review by the GAW once MnGeo has provided approval to continue. Kotz also agreed to create an initial draft of the required work plan once a charter is approved. Heggestad asked who will sponsor the development of this test implementation. Kotz said MetroGIS will sponsor the development in collaboration with MnGeo and others but details need to be worked out. Maeder stated help to develop data/metadata would be desirable. Kotz suggested that data assistance during the test stage may be less important, but will be critical in any successful implementation. The following recommendations were approved by the GAW: 2

3 1. That the ESRI Geoportal Extension be implemented in Minnesota on a test basis to evaluate to what degree it meets the defined functions of the GAW 2. That the test bed implementation be hosted at MnGeo 3. That an implementation workgroup consisting of members of partnering agencies be created to work with MnGeo on the implementation. This would be a technical subgroup of the GAW, with the GAW advising the technical implementation group. 4. That a work plan be created, with clearly defined expectations, outcomes, roles and responsibilities. The GAW would create this work plan. 5. The work plan should include, but not be limited to the following a. Installation b. Implementation of the workgroup defined functions c. Testing functions d. Assessing how implemented functions meet workgroup s defined needs e. Describing what other functionality is needed f. Recommending how that functionality might be acquired or created g. Recommending whether the ESRI extension should be used for a production portal/commons site b. A2 Survey Deegan stated that this survey is geared towards geospatial data users using existing sites at DNR, MetroGIS, etc. and not the data providers. Questions are branched by page a structure supported by the Survey Monkey tool. Watson cautioned that service could mean just a download service for some people. Kotz also mentioned the variations in web services. It was agreed that we move question 11 to right after question 8 (on map services) to tie associated topics. Rader also recommended exploring a help tool supported by Survey Monkey. For question #12, change from Mash up expert to Mash up users. For question #13, add Non-profit and general public to the option list. It was agreed that questions on user types can be used to tabulate with responses to determine whether we missed out on any important feedback from users of a certain profile. Kotz also mentioned that we would format branching structure on page 1 to accommodate both users of data downloads and web services. Deegan will work to revise. Deegan asked about the timing of this survey. Kotz suggested it would be nice if the test implementation was be tested and ready to be reported on before the GIS/LIS Conference in October. Thus, it will be highly desirable to have the testing and recommendations done by mid September. Although this portal project does not depend on the Geospatial Contest initiative, the contest, if approved would be a good fit to complement this portal project. The survey should go out as soon as possible to capture what we need to know for implementation. We can promote this survey informally via a pass of a link or advertize formally through the GIS/LIS newsletters and biweekly announcements. Watson said DNR can support the survey distribution by packaging it with data download notifications. Rader suggested that we add an introduction and perceived benefits to this survey. Deegan and Kotz will work on this short introduction. DNR will develop the survey in Survey Monkey upon Steve Lime s approval. Deegan will send out a final survey for this group s review. 3

4 c. B1 Web Services Requirements Watson demonstrated a diagram that explains what we need to do to implement a broker. ESP1 Broker Promise Enterprise Service Providers ESP2 ESP3 Portal ESP4 Application Client The level of broker functionality development depends on requirements (e.g. supporting data and service retrievals through.xml, web site, and get capabilities and so forth) stated Watson. We can start a pretty automatic and complete model and work on a fully developed version later on. Met Council will volunteer one person to work with this subgroup. [Note: Matt McGuire was designated to this subgroup after the meeting.] As to the web service trust issue, Matt McGuire s Powerpoint slides on Trust Issues in Sharing GIS Web Services were distributed to this workgroup. Watson envisioned a hybrid approach where the service providers can document their web service performance with or without metadata; broker could do some reliability testing if capable; and the client can also share the responsibility of investigating service performance. This subgroup will document detailed web service requirements and bring back to this group for peer review. In the meantime, Kotz will invite MnDOT to present its portal application for our next meeting. This will be followed by a meeting with ESRI representative for project assessment. d. B2 Service Level Agreements This subgroup is pending Loesch s response. Watson asked how can the broker support a trust worthy service? The drafting of the SLA template should be a parallel effort and should not slow things down said Kotz. 4

5 8. New Topic Area= Shared Architecture This is a piece of what we discussed earlier. Watson said DNR is revamping its architecture to serve as a GIS model/sharable framework for emerging service providers so this process is easy to share and connect to. Architecture Broker Portal Promise Enterprise Service Providers Custom-Built Application Layers of Tools 8.5 GIS/LIS Article Templates Standards Framework Kotz will write an article for the GIS/LIS newsletter to announce this project and send to this group before submission deadline on Feb. 12. MnGeo web master is in the process of setting up workgroup templates according to Rader and will add a portal project highlight to the Standards Committee page for this article to link to. This article will be circulated the beginning of March. 9. DNR AGS Web LandView and QuickLayers Pouliot demonstrated DNR s LandView and QuickLayers, an AGS Flex Application Interface that gives users the ability to find and add data/web services on the fly. Two interface widgets were introduced Add Map and Where. The former allows users to select available map services to be added to LandView Map. The Where widget takes a user to an area of interest based on the user s click on a reference map. 10. MnDOT s Approach to User Management/Security Kotz noted that he did not contact MnDOT about doing this presentation for this meeting. 11. Action Items Kotz will invite MnDOT to present on their ESRI Geoportal Extension implementation. Met Council and MnGeo will assign GIS people to assist the web services requirements subgroup and the implementation subgroup. Cialek will seek preliminary approval to move forward with hosting the test bed implementation. Kotz and Gumm will create a draft the charter for the workgroup s review once MnGeo provides preliminary approval. Gumm and Kotz will develop a draft work plan once the charter is approved. Deegan will revise and reformat the survey and send it to this workgroup for final review. Survey will be composed using Survey Monkey and promoted through links at current data/service provider sites. Advertising through GIS/LIS will follow. Kotz will prepare an article on Minnesota Geospatial Commons/Portal for the March GIS/LIS Newsletter. 5

6 12. Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2010 (Thurs.). Kotz will send out invites to this group for the remaining year to meet at 1:30 PM on the first Thursday of every month. Rader will try to book Room 304 for this workgroup. 6