There were five breakout session covering issues of interest to their individual group. These random points were made during the plenary session:
- different clients have different requirements
- requirements vs optional information
optional means possibility of missing info should be an extension of THREDDS to FGDC consider GCMD relationship of standards quantities for THREDDS
key words mapping controlled vocabulary via GCMD URL permanence - research is required; no redirection; need traversal tools to look for broken links SourceForge facilities on NSDL WIKI has a version control with its functionality as a collaborative too, which isl used by NSDL & DLESE access interface method: realtime vs archived; online vs delayed, etc. redundant servers would provide multiple access points more rather than less metadata human interaction needed for indepth metadata data providers need to be source of metadata DODS good at metadata data provider tools top priority (to help them get data on-line) DTD validation DC with edu extensions (discovery not used) not enough consider registry .Edu target audience very desirable investigate OpenGIS to see what catalog services it provides unified data model not first priority dataset identification (unique) should be primary focus data discovery primary focus of THREDDS metadata netCDF/DODS - abstract ADDE/HDF-EOS - more specific (grid, point, swath, etc) abstract can be used for more datasets but doesn't provide as much information (need conventions); more specific requires more work to fit datasets in (even extension of model) but once client gets data it knows how to do more things with it should the dataType values be an ontology? should THREDDS metadata be restricted to discovery and description or should it be a representation of a data model?
discovery only, the client will loose a lot of information when crossing the boundary between discovery and data access. multiple existing representations on discovery side (DC, FGDC, etc), multiple representations on access side (DODS, ADDE, etc). developing a general data model would require lots of work THREDDS data model and protocols-do in partnership THREDDS should develop a prioritized list of audiences/users and work with them GDS vs DODS/THREDDS aggregation
should only build one configuration needs a THREDDS catalog work being done on GDS configuration (Joe)- Should look toward a broader audience to participate