[IGS-DCWG-164] Re: IGS Site Log XML - requesting progress updates [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Fri Mar 17 03:48:14 PDT 2017

Hi Nick,

A short message to inquire about the progress concerning GeodesyML
since the feedback we sent last Oct.
Has a new version been released?

thanks,
Carine

Op 26/10/2016 om 4:29 schreef Brown Nicholas:
> Hi Carine, Thanks for this excellent feedback. We are looking to make
> some changes and improvements to GeodesyML in the coming weeks.
>
> This feedback you've provided will be very useful. I hope we can
> address all these concerns in the coming weeks.
>
> I'll let you know when we have a new version to trial.
>
> Kind Regards, Nick
>
> *Nicholas Brown* GNSS Operations and National Geodesy Team Leader
> Geoscience Australia
>
> On 26 Oct 2016, at 00:10, Carine Bruyninx (ROB) <C.Bruyninx at oma.be
> <mailto:C.Bruyninx at oma.be>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Fran,
>>
>> We have been trying to map the site logs of the EPN and EPN
>> densification (about 1300 site log files) in the GeodesyML format
>> and our main concerns are related to (hoping we got it all right):
>>
>> - fields that are mandatory in GeodesyML (mostly expecting a
>> double) and are not in the site log.
>>
>> - fields in the site log that have values such as "<5" while
>> GeodesyML only accepts a double
>>
>> - TIME/DATE format incomptability: GeodesyML accepts
>> CCYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ  or CCYY-MM-DD Site log  accepts
>> CCYY-MM-DDThh:mmZ     or CCYY-MM-DD
>>
>> - Site log section 3: Our site logs have two fields (deg C) +/-
>> (deg C) for the temperature stabilisation info from site log, while
>> GeodesyML has only one. But we discussed this already in a previous
>> mail.
>>
>> - Site log section 6: GeodesyML requests a double as input to
>> "Input Frequency" even if an internal frequency is used.
>>
>> - Section 8.5.1: GeodesyML asks for a date input, which is not
>> standard foreseen in site log
>>
>> - Site log Section 11: We choose to put site log Section 11 in
>> ‘siteContact’ and additionally, put the first contact also in put
>> in mandatory ‘siteMetadataCustodian’.
>>
>> - Site log Section 12: GeodesyML allows for only one contact person
>> in ‘siteOwner’, while Site log allows multiple.
>>
>> - Site log Sections 11 and 12: Fields: Prefered Abbreviation and
>> Additional Information are missing in GeodesyML. So information is
>> lost when converting to GeodesyML and The address in GeodesyML is
>> split in deliveryPoint, city, postcode, country while in the site
>> log, these fields are not always separated. Impossible to complete
>> GeodesyML automatically. Need to split also fields in site log to
>> accommodate GeodesyML.
>>
>>
>> In addition, we would like to see an extension of GeodesyML to
>> allow providing the url to the file with individual antenna
>> calibrations, if available.
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Carine
>>
>> Op 20/10/2016 om 15:29 schreef Fran Boler:
>>> Greetings All-
>>>
>>> Following the IGS Workshop in Sydney in April this year, we
>>> issued a call for Use Cases for the Site Log XML effort in an
>>> e-mail to this list. In April, the eGeodesy team announced the
>>> release of GeodesyML Beta 0.3 to this list.
>>>
>>> There hasn't been any disussions or updates since then, and I do
>>> apologize that I have not been able to devote time to this
>>> effort personally, and neither has UNAVCO been able to task the
>>> staff with implementation. However, I am hoping that some groups
>>> have had the chance to make progress toward our goals. Could I
>>> request a brief update from anyone who has been working towards
>>> implementing GeodesyML and the Site Log XML schemas and the
>>> machine-to-machine exchange of metadata? And for those like us at
>>> UNAVCO who have not started implementation but do still intend to
>>> work towards the goals, please respond indicating your
>>> intentions. Please reply to the entire list.
>>>
>>> I hope to be able to assemble an agenda and hold a teleconference
>>> in the next few weeks to review where we are in this effort,
>>> revisit the tasks, and propose timeline for progress.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your continued support of this effort.
>>>
>>> Best, Fran
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Carine Bruyninx                         Email : epncb at oma.be
>> <mailto:epncb at oma.be> EUREF Permanent Network Central Bureau
>> http://www.epncb.oma.be/
>>
>> Royal Observatory of Belgium            Phone : +32-(0)2-3730292
>> Av. Circulaire 3                        Fax   : +32-(0)2-3749822
>> B-1180 Brussels                         Email : C.Bruyninx at oma.be
>> <mailto:C.Bruyninx at oma.be> BELGIUM
>> http://www.gnss.be/
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________ IGS-DCWG mailing
>> list IGS-DCWG at igscb.jpl.nasa.gov
>> <mailto:IGS-DCWG at igscb.jpl.nasa.gov>
>> https://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mailman/listinfo/igs-dcwg

-- 
Carine Bruyninx
*
**EUREF Permanent Network Central Bureau*
epncb at oma.be
http://www.epncb.eu/
http://twitter.com/EPN_CB/
**
***Royal Observatory of Belgium***
GNSS Research Group
http://www.gnss.be/
http://www.orb.be/
http://twitter.com/ORB_KSB/