Outputs and Activities:
Data Sharing
Capacity Building
Science and Technology
User Engagement
Gap Analysis

GEO Task ID-03: Science and Technology in GEOSS

Extended Task Sheet:
Science and Technology — Status of Activities - Activity 2.2


Presentations and Publications

Plag, H.-P., 2012. Labeling Geo-Referenced Information in Support of Data Sharing and the Facilitating of Societal Benefits of Earth Observations. Proceed. ICHMET 2012, 24-27 September 2012, Rome, Italy (extended abstract, poster).

Plag, H.-P., 2012. A Geo-Label for Geo-Referenced Information as a Service for Data Users and a Tool for Facilitating Societal Benefits of Earth Observations. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 14, EGU2012-PREVIEW. poster, presentation).

Plag, H.-P. and McCallum, I., 2012. Linking Science and Technology to GEOSS: Contributions of the ST-09-02/ID-03 GEO Work Plan Tasks and the EGIDA Project. Poster presented at the “EuroGEOSS Advancing the Vision for GEOSS” Meeting, January 25-27, 2012, Madrid, Spain. (pdf).

Status of Work

ID-03 is developing a concept for the GEO Label. Initial input for the discussion of the concept was provided by the STC Co-Chairs in 2010 (see doc). During a number of meetings, various aspects of labeling in general and the GEO Label in particular have been addressed. Some of this work has been summarized in an EGIDA Technical Report (see doc).

The goal of the current work is to provide a concept paper on the GEO Label. The GEO Label activity is supported by the EGIDA and GeoViqua Projects.

The work on the GEO Label is coordinated by ID-03 with QA4EO, the Data Sharing Task Force, and the relevant Infrastructure Tasks. The QA4EO web page contains a number of documents relevant for the GEO Label; see QA4EO Documentation.

Brief Summary of ST-09-02 Work Releated to GEO Label

In 2009, the ST-09-02 Task Team expressed uncertainties about the GEO Label goals. After discussion in the ST-09-02 Task Team, the STC co-chairs were asked to provide more guidance on what principles the GEO label should be based on. This resulted in the general concept document prepared by the STC co-chairs (see doc).

The STC Co-Chairs indicated that there is a necessity to define review indicators for data sets, products, and services. The concept of review indicators is intended to design/develop a mechanism for asking task leads and task contributors to identify appropriate review mechanisms relevant for their task/dataset/product. These review indicators could then provide a basis for designing part of the assessment for the GEO label 'objective' measure. Examples are that a traditional science project might specify an appropriate indicator as "methodology subject to peer review by ISI journal" as an appropriate review indicator, where a project developing standards might specify "Developed by agreed ISO standards process", both might have similar rating in a GEO label where "published on a web site by an undergraduate student" might not. The Co-Chairs also indicated that ST-09-02 needs to primarily take carriage of progressing the "objective" GEO Label concept in cooperation with QA4EO, which would include development of appropriate review indicators as discussed above.

After the Work Plan Meeting in Pretoria, the following work distribution related to the GEO Label was anticipated:

  • STC (through ST-09-02 and in consultation with QA4EO) to design and develop 'objective' measures
  • UIC to design and develop 'subjective' measures
  • ADC to oversee technical implementation in GCI (once designed)

However, at the UIC-14 in Oslo, September 1, 2010, it was agreed that ST-09-02 would draft the complete GEO Label Concept and then ask for feedback from the UIC. Moreover, the paper by Parsons et al. (2010) clarifies that there is currently no well-defined process for data review but emphasizes the need for such a process. Therefore, it is not recommended that GEO develops its own process but rather facilitates an agreement that is widely accepted.

Considering these boundary conditions, one of the Task Leads developed a draft based on these guidelines. This draft was discussed during the ST-09-02 Task team meeting, but no consensus was reached (see Meeting page and there the minutes of the second Task Team meeting). Subsequently, the discussion in the Task Team focussed on developing a general white paper on labeling of geo-referenced data as input for the Committees. However, this work was delayed for various reasons.

Aspects of GEO Label

Completeness of metadata is an important indicator; however, any criteria based on this should account for the fact that metadata fields have different value.

Unique data identifiers are very important.

The use of data in a way it is not trusted is inappropriate. Even if data are not available, Q-data should be made available freely.

Compliance with standards was not considered important by those who responded to the GeoViqua questionnaire. However, this may depend on the particular users who responded. Commercial users might want higher compliance.

Societal relevance was not asked in the questionnaire. Certification was not positively received.


Parsons, M. A., Duerr, R., Minster, J.-B., 2010. Data Citation and Peer Review. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 91, 297-298.

Last edited 02 December 2016

In case of problems, mail to Web Administrator.